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.

Biden says he’ll call for Supreme Court reform in final months in office

Biden delivered remarks from the Oval Office outlining his decision not to seek reelection, his first on-camera remarks since making that announcement on Sunday. In addition to explaining why he is ending his candidacy, he listed off his priorities for his remaining time as president.

“And I’m going to call for Supreme Court reform, because this is critical to our democracy,” Biden said.

Multiple outlets have reported that Biden is considering proposals to establish term limits for Supreme Court justices and an enforceable ethics code for those on the high court.

Hegar ,
@Hegar@fedia.io avatar

If I understand the supreme court correctly, Biden could just shoot Roberts, Alito and Thomas and call it court reform, right? That makes it an official act?

ignirtoq ,

Ironically if he did that and appointed new liberal justices, there's a good chance the new Court would overturn this Court's decision, and he could be convicted of murder and probably violating several other federal laws for that act.

BradleyUffner ,

I think there is something in the constitution about not being able to charge someone criminally for something retroactively, that wasn’t a crime at the time it was committed.

Found it! Article 1, section 9, clause 3.

ignirtoq ,

Ex post facto is for if a new law is passed making something a crime, and the act was committed before its passage. This is all about interpretation of already passed law. It's basically the justices saying that this was against the law the whole time. Ex post facto doesn't apply here.

Sabata11792 ,

The president is currently above the law, so the constitution is as good as toilet paper.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Worth it.

Cryophilia ,

but nothing, nothing can come in the way of saving our democracy

  • Joe Biden

Come on, Joe! Go out with a bang!

wabafee ,
@wabafee@lemmy.world avatar

Joe bang!

catloaf ,

No, because he’s not a Republican.

nul9o9 ,

However, the justices that make that distinction relevant would no longer be able to do so?

catloaf ,

I think the remainder would be against it regardless.

Varyk ,

That’s correct

ikidd ,
@ikidd@lemmy.world avatar

I would chance it.

ricecake ,

So, to answer seriously: if it’s an explicit presidential power he gets total personal immunity, although the office can still be restricted. If it’s an official act, he’s presumed to have personal immunity unless the prosecutor can argue that there’s no way that not having immunity could get in the way of doing the job of president, and they’re not allowed to use motivation to make the case.

The president isn’t given the explicit power to reform the courts.
He’s given explicit power to command the armed forces, but the rules of the armed forces are decided by Congress.

So it’s a question arguing how “the president can’t kill members of the judiciary” doesn’t hinder the power of the executive branch without referencing why the president is killing them.

crusa187 ,

Who’s gonna vote to say it wasn’t official afterwards?

WatDabney ,

I was hoping for that.

He’s a lame duck now. That means he’s free to pursue policies that will add to his legacy, and without having to give even the tiniest shit about what the establishment and the donor class might think about it.

Stanley_Pain ,
@Stanley_Pain@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

You can tell the repubes were

A. Caught of guard by this and

B. Have no idea how to handle it.

machinin ,

I’m even wondering if the timing was intentional. Right after the RNC convention and they took all the momentum from Trump in one single announcement. Maybe they lined to the donors to pump up the donations right after the announcement to gain more momentum. If so, it was really genius.

Bishma OP ,
@Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

I agree in sentiment, but the lame duck doesn’t start until November 6th. And we need to stop normalizing otherwise because the republicans have already weaponized it.

Iheartcheese ,
@Iheartcheese@lemmy.world avatar

Come on Biden. Go to fucking town. Let your legacy be crazy ass fights.

GiuseppeAndTheYeti ,

That’s not entirely true with Kamala being tied to his administration. I still think it would only make her more popular, but his actions aren’t truly lame duck.

rockSlayer ,

Add 2 seats to the bench, and then add 13 total judges. 11 of 22 judges are selected at random to determine the case. The non voting judge opinion becomes part of the case law, as well as an intercollegiate constitutional scholar opinion

commandar ,

This matches the broad strokes of the approach I favor as well.

There are 13 Federal circuits. Expand to one justice per circuit, then double that.

But the core of the approach, regardless of the exact number, is to shift to having cases heard by randomized panels of judges. The amount of power wielded by individual justices right now is just insane. Dilute it down so that the power rests with the body rather than individuals.

Further, randomizing who hears any given case would help curtail the current environment where test cases get tailored to the idiosyncracies and pet theories of individual judges.

SCOTUS should be deciding cases based on rational reading of the law, not entertaining wing nut theories that Thomas or Alito hinted at in previous decisions. That sort of nonsense becomes a lot less feasible if there’s no guarantee a case will actually end up in front of Thomas or Alito.

GiuseppeAndTheYeti ,

So what happens when the judges chosen for a case interpretation end up being 7-2 in one party’s favor? Conservatives would be sitting at the slot machines in a diaper pulling the lever until they hit a jackpot. It’s not like making them sit out of some cases based on a lottery is going to make them any less hypocritical or prone to power tripping and bribery. They’ll just wait their turn.

Appointees should just be subject to term limits and yearly affirmation votes by members of the BAR association to renew or revoke their qualifications. That way members of the public that are still well versed in law are able to hold them accountable.

commandar ,

I think you’re missing the point.

As things stand now, you get cases that are tailor made to the whims of specific people because there’s a 100% chance it ends up in front of those specific people. That’s an absolutely massive problem.

The point is that you’re less likely to have cases that are specifically aimed at stroking any given individual’s brand of crazy when there’s only a ~1 in 3 chance they’ll even hear it. A panel of 9 from a pool of 26 means that you go from a 100% chance that, say, Alito and Thomas, hear a case together to around 12%. That’s a huge gamble when it takes years and a massive amount of money to get a case in front of SCOTUS.

No, it doesn’t solve all conceivable problems with the court. But it’d help address the fact that SCOTUS justices are entirely too powerful as individuals and it can be done via simple act of Congress.

Appointees should just be subject to term limits and yearly affirmation votes by members of the BAR association to renew or revoke their qualifications

Not going to happen. SCOTUS terms are life appointments constitutionally. That means you’ve gotten into amendment territory which just plain is not realistic right now.

wildncrazyguy138 ,

A modern day Cincinnatus, the Supreme Court just made him a consul and he just chose to go back to being a common man for the good of the republic.

If this plays out, he’ll go down in history books as the man who sacrificed himself to save Democracy.

Todd_cross ,

From what I understand Cincinnatus gave up his dictatorship because he just liked to farm, and while he was an effective and generally good leader, he just liked to farm.

pikmeir ,

But farming? Really? Man of your talents?

QuarterSwede ,
@QuarterSwede@lemmy.world avatar

Many great leaders want peace and quiet at some point. This resonates with me for sure.

Nougat ,

Washington very definitely wanted to get back to Mount Vernon. Jefferson always said he wanted to stay at home, but that was at least partially performative.

Cryophilia ,

It’s a peaceful life.

TransplantedSconie ,

Who wouldn’t?

Out in the fresh air, soil in your hands, working the land to bring forth food.

Or

Court intrigue, back stabbing (literally sometimes), mountains of paperwork, assholes attacking your country at times. That shit would get old quick.

ikidd ,
@ikidd@lemmy.world avatar

Don’t be so quick to rush into farming. I went from IT to farming and just spent 3 hours in the ER getting stitched back up, for about the 4th time in 5 years, and I’m probably ahead of most.

It ain’t a safe occupation. I should do something less hazardous like being a cop.

Tyfud ,

Or a school teacher.

ikidd ,
@ikidd@lemmy.world avatar

I’m not brave enough for that.

tryagain ,

Give it up for Jimmy Carter

venusaur ,
@venusaur@lemmy.world avatar

He should work on all of these:

Term limits for Supreme Court

Abolish Electoral college

Restrictions on corporate real estate investing

Forgive student loans

Restrictions on members of government trading stocks

Nougat ,

The first two of those will require constitutional amendments. That's a years-long process.

bestagon ,

Better get started then

lauha ,

Hopefully Kamala would continue that process

BackOnMyBS ,
@BackOnMyBS@lemmy.autism.place avatar

Not really. There’s a popular vote interstate compact that is designed to bypass a constitutional amendment. Basically, the law says that once enough states agree to it, meaning to total electoral votes reaches 270, their votes go for whichever candidate won the popular vote.

Nougat ,

I am well familiar with that one, but that is a state-level endeavor, and I'm not sure that Biden, as a federal office-holder, should be involved in that.

Feathercrown ,

He’s been working on #4 pretty consistently at least

AIhasUse ,

What’s the average amount of student loan forgiveness that students have received? Do you think it is more or less than a months rent?

Feathercrown ,

Unfortunately blanket student loan forgiveness keeps getting blocked by republicans in congress or judges they’ve appointed. They’ve only been able to provide relief to those who need it most. I know I haven’t gotten any. But that’s why average isn’t a great metric to use here-- I don’t need it, others do. Not to mention, average in terms of what-- absolute monetary value? Proportion of money received compared to total loan balance? Compared to original loan balance before interest?

Feathercrown ,

Because I’m bored though, I’ll humor you.

Total direct loan forgiveness (not counting repayment pauses during covid or other relief measures): $167 billion

Total US outstanding student loan debt: $1.77 trillion

Total US outstanding student loan borrowers: 42.8 million

Average student loan debt per outstanding borrower: ~$40k (same source as above)

Total percentage of debt cancelled: 167m/1770m = 9.4%

Average debt relief per person: $3,900 (!)

So yes, it’s paid for multiple months worth of rent, and relieved about 10% of everyone’s debt on average! Better than I expected.

kibiz0r ,

There’s already a state-level effort on #2 that’s pretty far along: en.wikipedia.org/…/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta…

todd_bonzalez ,

Coulda done this in the first months in office, and actually made a difference, but I guess doing it for votes during an election is better than nothing?

BigFatNips ,

He’s not running tho

Cryophilia ,

Which is now why he’s doing it. No more fucks given

Crikeste ,

Just like he let abortion rights be abolished so he could campaign on it.

jordanlund ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

He can call for whatever he wants, but with a Republican house and less than 60 votes in the Senate, it goes nowhere.

Guy_Fieris_Hair ,

If I remember right, he called for Marijuana legalization and student loan forgiveness as well.

brucethemoose ,

But he has no power to do that, right? Congress would have to go along, and the Supreme Court is not gonna just do it themselves.

catloaf ,

Yeah. Specifically, Mitch “too close to an election” McConnell would block the confirmation.

Or so I assume. I had to go see if he was still alive, because I hadn’t heard from him in a while. Seems he got booed at the RNC.

Crismus ,

He can have the CIA assassinate them, and keep it top secret. The Judiciary is it’s own section and without a true act of congress or Constitutional Amendment nothing can change without the Supreme Court going in on it.

That Supreme Court case just set in stone what all Presidents have had for what they did in office. George W. never spent time in jail for war crimes, Reagan never went away for arming paramilitary groups, and Nixon didn’t go to jail for spying on the DNC.

thegr8goldfish ,

Weird how those guys are all in the same party.

Cryophilia ,

To be fair we could add Obama to the list too.

carl_dungeon ,

Lock them up lock them up

morphballganon ,

Call for?

Can’t he executive order it?

mctoasterson ,

He can do fuck all about it by himself.

He is the lamest of ducks.

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