There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

House Democrat is proposing a constitutional amendment to reverse Supreme Court's immunity decision

A leading House Democrat is preparing a constitutional amendment in response to the Supreme Court’s landmark immunity ruling, seeking to reverse the decision “and ensure that no president is above the law.”

Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York, the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, sent a letter to colleagues informing them of his intent to file the resolution, which would kickstart what’s traditionally a cumbersome amendment process.

“This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do — prioritize our democracy,” Morelle said in a statement to AP.

It’s the most significant legislative response yet to the decision this week from the court’s conservative majority, which stunned Washington and drew a sharp dissent from the court’s liberal justices warning of the perils to democracy, particularly as Trump seeks a return to the White House. Still, the effort stands almost no chance of succeeding in this Congress.

ChrisMcMillan ,

This is the way.

SeattleRain ,

I’ll believe it when I see it.

Hackworth ,

Do you not believe they’re preparing an amendment, or do you not believe it will pass?

SeattleRain ,

I think they’ll sabotage it or compromise it so much it will be meaningless like the Dems always do.

Hackworth ,

You believe it’s the Dem’s that do the sabotaging, and that they are compromising to…themselves? Interesting.

shikitohno ,

For some of their more conservative members, they’ve certainly done so in the past, but I’m pretty sure that @SeattleRain is just talking about the self-defeating obsession that Democrats have with appearing non-partisan. Yes, they do need to compromise to an extent to get something through the house at the moment, but they have essentially self-sabotaged in the past when they had the majorities to not need to do so, yet insist on negotiating with the Republicans anyway because they hope moderate Republicans will give them credit for not ramming legislation through in a one-sided fashion.

This really only works when the other party is engaging in negotiations in good faith, which the Republicans do not. As a result, the Democrats give the GOP initiative on steering bills and policies as they like, winding up with compromised legislation that doesn’t please their actual base, while also not getting credit from the Republicans they’re hoping to sway in some sense.

For an easy example of this, look at talks about eliminating the filibuster earlier in Biden’s presidency. Manchin and Sinema made it a dead idea, but even before that, Biden has been opposed because of his obsession with reaching across the aisle in an age where trying to do so only serves to stop his agenda dead in its tracks. Rather than get their elbows out and bully the two hold outs into falling in line (which was supposed to be what Manchin was good for, at least. I kept hearing, “He disrupts things, but he falls in line when it counts,” but pretty much never saw evidence of this), they just shrugged and collectively let the agenda die or get neutered, because to do otherwise would not be bipartisan.

Hackworth ,

I appreciate one of the most concise explanations of that perspective I’ve ever read! This is actually the one I’d like to believe, but not the one I do. I disagree with the idea that “both sides are the same,” but I won’t go so far as to imagine Democrats are truly concerned with integrity to the degree that they’d sacrifices strategy. I’m afraid they’re just people, and people are all fucking stupid in their own way. It’s just some are fucking stupid and malicious.

shikitohno ,

I don’t think it’s necessarily being so concerned with integrity as to deliberately self-sabotage, but rather that this was a potentially viable strategy 40-50 years ago, and many of the eldritch horrors in party leadership, Biden included, just haven’t gotten the message that the situation has changed in the interim. Part of Biden’s campaign pitch was that he’s worked in Congress for so long and has the relations that would let him reach out to the other side to get stuff passed, and he just gets taken advantage of when trying to do so. The Republicans have long since moved on to a strategy of “Ram through whatever you can while you’re in power, and obstruct, obstruct, obstruct when you aren’t.” They generally aren’t concerned at all with what non-GOP voters think of them and their actions, which lets them just bulldoze their way through the process while racking up points with their base for being effective at advancing the agenda, regardless of how hypocritical/immoral they are in the process. Just see Mitch McConnell when Obama tried appointing a justice to the Supreme Court near the end of his term versus his response to Trump doing the same.

I would also say there’s just a fundamentally different level of at least the appearance of integrity necessary on the Democratic side, and Democratic voters are less willing to accept that the ends justifies the means. This is clearly illustrated just by looking at the fallout for pretty much any Republican having a sex scandal, versus it happening to a Democrat. In his initial scandal, Anthony Weiner didn’t even engage in a criminal act, having sent a 21-year old woman a sexually explicit photo. In less than a month, Nancy Pelosi had called for an investigation into it and he’d resigned his seat. In contrast, Trump has been found liable for sexual abuse in a civil case and has had heaps of sexual assault and harassment accusations brought against him, yet the party of family values, good, Christian morals, and law and order is still completely behind him.

twistypencil ,

Military must refuse illegal orders… I don’t think it’s that simple. Maybe if he goes on a one president killing spree, but ordering people to do illegal things doesn’t mean they are immediately going to do illegal things, especially when they are not criminally immune

SpaceCowboy ,
@SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca avatar

Problem is not everyone in the military is a constitutional scholar. What happens if part of the military believes it’s their duty to follow the President’s order (since they judge it to be a legal order) while another part of the military believes it’s their duty to not follow an order (since they judge it to be illegal)?

This ruling is laying the groundwork for a civil war.

droans ,

We’re not exactly more than a couple steps away from the SCOTUS saying that if you can’t prosecute official acts, then ipso facto it must also extend to those enforcing the acts.

Fedizen ,

this is a gimme. You show you’re willing to pass laws to reign them in.

quoll ,
@quoll@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

repeal the 2nd while you at it

archonet ,

yes, the perfect time to give up our guns, when the fascists are on the verge of getting control of the government, what a smart idea

someguy3 ,

Yup this is the way to do it too. It needs to be part of the Constitution to override this “interpretation”.

fubarx ,

Say this gets passed, and it’s signed. Forget the higher bar for an amendment. It will get challenged and end up in front of the very same court.

The system has an inherent flaw that was not anticipated by the Founders. Smart, legal people need to get into 4D puzzle-solving mode.

Eezyville ,
@Eezyville@sh.itjust.works avatar

This isn’t a law that has to be signed but a constitutional amendment that has to be ratified by a certain number of states.

NoSuchAgency ,

For years the Supreme Court had a liberal majority and now that they don’t, they claim every decision they make is the end of the world and they want to lock everyone up and stack the courts. This is just more of the same

ampersandrew ,
@ampersandrew@lemmy.world avatar

They just made bribes legal and made the president above the law.

mashbooq ,

Because the liberal Supreme Court largely supported democracy, while the conservative one isn’t even trying to hide its promotion of fascism. There is no both sides here

Empricorn , (edited )

Reversing decades of settled law in multiple rulings is not “more of the same”. Lie to yourself, don’t lie to those of us with open eyes.

Cornelius_Wangenheim ,

The Supreme Court hasn’t had a liberal majority since the 80s. The difference is that until the Trump appointments, the nakedly partisan political hacks were a minority on the court.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •