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.

Phoenix3875 ,

“No one is above the law” seems a bit of circular with the fact that the law is what the Supreme Court says it is. Similarly, who would decide whether a Supreme Court judge violates the purported Code of Conduct?

I guess it would all come to the legislation branch, but even if the reform goes through, I’m afraid that the political division in the Congress would limit its effectiveness.

snooggums ,
@snooggums@midwest.social avatar

Similarly, who would decide whether a Supreme Court judge violates the purported Code of Conduct?

Congress could impeach them, but the bar is high and Republicans have proven they will vote for party over country multiple times.

wolfpack86 ,

I think the trick with the term limits is the way this also has teeth. My understanding of one way the term limits thing could work is by moving justices to a senior status… Still technically appointed (and for life) but just not in the starting lineup.

I would guess that if the above method is the approach, a binding ethics code could have as punishment moving a justice to senior status, effectively benching them.

orcrist ,

Good. We needed to hear this. How much can be done, we shall see, but a plan is a great starting point.

elbucho , (edited )
@elbucho@lemmy.world avatar

I’m a bit skeptical on the first bullet point: while I’m all for an amendment to the US constitution that spells out in detail the limits on presidential authority, it’s still an amendment that has to get passed. That means that it needs a 2/3rds majority in both the House and the Senate, or it needs to be supported by 2/3rds of the state legislatures. I don’t think there’s any way in hell that Biden’s going to be able to get that through while the prospect of Trump regaining the presidency is on the horizon. At the moment, 47% of the US Senate is Democrat, with 4% caucusing with the Democrats most of the time, 49% of the US House is Democrat, and 46% of State Governors are Democrat. While it’s not 100% certain that all Republicans would vote along party lines, I’m reasonably certain that all Republicans would vote along party lines, which means a constitutional amendment is dead in the water.

Now, if Harris wins the presidency, there’s a good chance that the Republicans would be willing to vote for an amendment to curtail presidential authority. But right now? Nuh uh. Not gonna happen. As for the other two bullet points, they’re certainly more possible right now than a constitutional amendment, but still unlikely. Dems don’t have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and I’m certain that the Republicans would filibuster the shit out of that. Even if that wasn’t the case, there’s no way it’d pass the House. Best case scenario, Harris wins, with a large majority in both houses, and is able to push some legislation along these lines through.

Edit: changed language from “ratified by 2/3rds of the states” to “supported by 2/3rds of the state legislatures”.

pezhore ,
@pezhore@lemmy.ml avatar

Fun fact, it doesn’t have to be an amendment - it can just be a normal law. The check on judiciary is if Congress and the President both say, " you got it wrong SCOTUS" and pass a law that specifically says things are different.

Now I’m basing that on my 9th grade civics knowledge which could be wrong… But I thought that’s why there were pushes for contraceptive laws post gutting of abortion rights. Basically telling the high court, this is what we’re doing now.

elbucho ,
@elbucho@lemmy.world avatar

That’s a bit trickier, though, because SCOTUS already ruled on this, which means that their fucked ruling is now precedent. So any future challenges to a law passed by congress would be interpreted with that precedent in mind. If the composition of the supreme court changes, they could reverse their earlier rulings, but it’s much less certain of an outcome than if there was an amendment to the constitution guiding future decisions.

snooggums ,
@snooggums@midwest.social avatar

SCOTUS can simply rule the law unconstitutional…

Laws for contraceptive right are needed because SCOTUS ruled there weren’t any laws saying it was a right, because they have the constitution backwards.

zombyreagan ,

Iirc constitutional ammendments have to pass both congress AND the states. It’s not an either or

elbucho ,
@elbucho@lemmy.world avatar

Technically, it’s an either / or process. It either needs 2/3rds of both houses, or 2/3rds of state legislatures have to call for a constitutional convention. You are right, however, in that after either hurdle is passed, it still needs to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures in the union. That’s where the equal rights amendment is now. It passed both houses, but has not yet met the 3/4 state legislature hurdle, so it’s still in the pipeline 81 years after its proposal. Yay government!

acockworkorange ,

All Biden need to do is threaten to use his newfound powers to meddle in the red states’ crusade against lgbtq.

xmunk ,

Maybe he could change the rules of voting in congress from “Yea/Nay” to “Yes, harder daddy/No, don’t fucking stop daddy” that’s probably within the role of his office.

elbucho ,
@elbucho@lemmy.world avatar

I mean, thanks to Obama, the president has the authority to kill any US citizen they deem as a threat. The ACLU brought a case against the government about that, but that case was dismissed on procedural grounds, so it’s still constitutionally untested. But regardless of it being tested, there is precedent for it, thanks to Obama’s murder of Anwar Al-Awlaqi. And since the precedent says that the murder by the executive branch of any US citizen it deems a threat is kosher, well that would fall pretty nicely under the heading of “official acts of office” that this latest supreme court case showed would be absolutely immune from prosecution.

So I guess the question is: does Biden feel like murdering a bunch of citizens?

RestrictedAccount ,

If the Democrats don’t win a landslide, this goes nowhere.

Vote!!!

mecfs ,

It’s not gonna happen, we need 2/3rds of states, but when republicans block it, it sends a clear message who the wannabe autocrats are.

hohoho ,
@hohoho@lemmy.world avatar

This is huge

M500 ,

I don’t get the appointing of a new judge every two years for 18 years. Does that mean that the courts are gonna like fill up with a bunch of justices or is it just every two years you can replace an empty seat?

airbreather ,

Once the lifetime appointees have been dealt with in whatever way, the Court will have nine members, each appointed one after the other with two years in between, with the next-most-senior member’s term expiring every two years to keep the number stable at nine.

acockworkorange ,

Once the lifetime appointees have been dealt with

This sounds specially more ominous now that the President is untouchable.

CaptSneeze ,

The same dark comedy thought crossed my mind!

I expect they might retire and replace the existing judges, one every two years, in order of length of time already served. This would make it so they start this new system off already having 9 seats filled.

Amputret ,
@Amputret@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

How many justices do you think there will be if there’s a new one appointed each two years and they are term-limited to 18 years?

FuglyDuck ,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

To expand on what AirBreather said, the new justices would have an 18 year term, replacing one every two years.

this is actually a reasonable solution I pushed a while back. Basically, it would keep the aspect of the court changing slowly (an intentional feature,) but it would still let it change. Further, each president gets two SCOTUS peeps at predictable times, removing the ability of the senate to play games and game the system. (or installing relatively young judges who will serve for forty+ years.)

wolfpack86 ,

As I understood how this would work is the next appointment will be “term limited”. After 18 years they would assume senior justice status. This will do two things. First, allow for someone new to be appointed. Second, ensure they don’t run afoul of the lifetime appointment status.

Under the senior status, the most recent to leave the court can step in again as a sub after a death pending installation of a new “starter”.

So in one way yes, there will be many more justices… But there will be a starting 9, and more in a pseudo retirement. This will be a long road to get there, as they need to wait for the first vacancy, and then the next, etc.

M500 ,

I don’t get the appointing of a new judge every two years for 18 years. Does that mean that the courts are gonna like fill up with a bunch of justices or is it just every two years you can replace an empty seat?

Stovetop ,

Still 9 justices. The justices would have an 18-year term limit, so one seat opens and is then filled every two years.

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