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.

  • kn33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    104
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    This is the only way to change that. I don’t have much hope that it’ll pass, though.

          • APassenger@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            He’s too virtuous. He hasn’t processed that anything he does is legal.

            So he leads be example. Or something.

            Maybe someone should explain it to him before 4 PM?

            • paddirn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              6 months ago

              It feels so Game of Thrones-ish. Democrats are going to act all high and mighty and virtuous, while Republicans are just going to be like Cersei Lannister, “Is this meant to be your shield, Lord Stark? A piece of paper?” Republicans will run them through and sleep well knowing they won, without a guilty conscience. The President should be acting now to protect the country, not waiting the for the wolves to get into the hen house and then wringing their hands that there was nothing they could do about it.

              • JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                6 months ago

                That’s pretty much it. Republicans are bring out the spiked maces and Dems are just trying to fisticuff they’re way out of it. Because virtue.

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Not even fisticuffs. They’re filing a motion to discourage mace spikes over a certain length.

                  Pending the approval of some unelected clerk rando with only symbolic authority, of course.

        • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Being free from the consequences of your actions does not give you absolute power and authority. He can’t fire them, because he never had that power. What he can do is have them swatted and kill them in official capacity, although he can still be impeached.

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Them actively denying legislature on a whim would be time consuming and bring us closer to congress impeaching the justices and removing them.

    • FenrirIII@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      6 months ago

      “Instead of Sleepy Joe, you would have a King, not pale but orange and terrible as the inflation rate! Tempestuous as a 6 year-old, and stronger than the laws of the earth! All shall love me and covfefe!”

      –Trump

        • Breezy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          Dont forget to give him his AI response phone, you know he is a lot more manageable when he think gets to complain to a bunch of people.

  • NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Biden should get on the floor and force a debate. Bring a nerf gun and just start shooting people who disagree or email in an end of debate.

  • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    They should also abolish the supreme court while they’re at it. Just have the justices be pulled at random from lower courts.

    Maybe get rid of judicial review, too, since that’s apparently just inferred and not an explicit power given to the courts.

  • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Here’s the problem with a constitutional amendment:

    You will never, ever get a single politician to vote for an amendment specifically designed to weaken the power of their own party leader. No Republican will ever vote for this, especially right now when there’s so much momentum going Trump’s way. It. Will. Never. Happen.

    I have a better chance of Taylor Swift dumping her boyfriend and declaring her undying love for me during her next concert than a single Republican voting in favor of this. This is performance and nothing more.

    The only realistic path to reversing this is:

    • Electing Biden or whoever the Dem nominee is in November.
    • Hope that Thomas and Alito die, retire, get abducted by aliens, or whatever during Biden’s term so Biden can replace them with two liberal judges, giving liberals a 5-4 majority.
    • Bring a case to the court (I don’t know who would have standing to bring such a case, but…) to give the Supreme Court the opportunity to reverse that decision.

    Rinse and repeat for every bad decision this half-baked court has made.

    This is it. That is the only path. Any other attempt to fix these problems either require a constitutional amendment no GOP politician or governor would ever vote for or ratify or can simply be struck down by the very Supreme Court that caused this mess in the first place.

    • Switchy85@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      About the standing thing: the beauty is the current Supreme Court has eliminated that as a real requirement, so you can just have someone sue for theoretical harm and be all good.

    • Makeitstop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      If you have a majority on the court that takes this disastrous decision as seriously as they should and are ready to overturn it, then it’s fairly easy to get the case to happen. You just need to have a sitting president tell the justice department to bring a case against him. Doesn’t have to be for anything big, just literally any criminal offense that can be brought to trial and appealed. He can even appeal directly to the supreme court and ask that they expedite the appeal. They hear the appeal, issue a ruling, and the precedent is gone.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    6 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    WASHINGTON (AP) — 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.

    The outcome all but ensures the federal cases against Trump will not be resolved before the November election when he faces a likely rematch with President Joe Biden.

    While the constitutional amendment process would likely take years, and in fact may never come to fruition, supporters believe it is the most surefire way, even beyond a new law, to enshrine the norm that presidents can face consequences for their actions.

    “This amendment will guarantee that no public officer of the United States — including the president — is able to evade the accountability that any other American would face for violating our laws,” Morelle wrote in a letter to colleagues this week.

    Another Democrat, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, said Monday she planned to file articles of impeachment against the justices over the ruling, which she said represents “an assault on American democracy.”


    The original article contains 565 words, the summary contains 213 words. Saved 62%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Rimu@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    6 months ago

    Ah yes, a strongly worded letter. That’s the Dem way. Works every time.

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 months ago

      A letter informing his fellow legislators of the tangible action he’s undertaking. The letter is a supplement to that tangible action, which helps empower it. What more do you want?

      • asteriskeverything@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Ikr I am doubting my understanding of what I read. He is trying to add a new amendment to the constitution! That’s pretty neat. I don’t know my history well enough to know if this is uncommon but it is a new experience for me, so I also really appreciate that.

        Instead of being like… bigoted shit.

        • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yeah part of being an effective legislator is drumming up support for your legislation, which is exactly what this looks like. When your job is literally writing policy into reality, “strongly worded letter” can be anything from a hollow complaint to legally actionable constitutional law.