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.

148 points

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

permalink
report
reply
67 points

But SCOTUS can choose how to interpret this amendment however they choose.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

And a President can fire them. Or more. Because they said he could.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

What’s he waiting for then?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Under the new authority they’ve granted him, he can also “fire” them, if you get my meaning.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

They don’t seem to care.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Pass? The Republican controlled House won’t even bring it up for a vote!

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

It’s the only legislative way to change that.

There is a way that Biden could change that completely unilaterally, but he’s not going to do it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Impeachment. Impeachment is easier, more direct, and since the justices can theoretically interpret the amendment any way they wish far more likely to be effective.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Yeah they’ve already wiped their asses with the spirit of the Constitution. There are currently in rules for the but not for me mode. It’s still a good gesture.

permalink
report
parent
reply
70 points

America has no king. America needs no king.

permalink
report
reply
38 points

“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

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Okay Donadriel, let’s get you back to your room and change your diapie.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
62 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
18 points

There’s also the malicious compliance path (which, to be fair, would also have more than its fair share of dire complications and implications, but it would at least address the immediate and imminent threat of a fascist takeover in 4 months).

But Biden is 100% not going to do that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

This is it. That is the only path.

You don’t need Republicans to expand the court. Just saying. It’s not the ONLY path.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

There’s also having a Democrat abuse this in a way that is directly a danger to GOP politicians and using Biden as a sacrificial lamb. Something like ordering the military to execute several members of Congress and SCOTUS justices and then pardoning them.

But let’s be fair, the underlying argument they’re using is one meant to do things like not make the president guilty of murder for anyone killed by the military or in action under the military, not to protect Trump from conspiring to do crimes with people in his admin.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I agree but there is another path: if Democrats win both houses of Congress and the President, and Senate Democrats agree to blow up the filibuster, they can pack the court whenever they want.

I am of the opinion they should slam the Court up to 11 right away, then 13 in time for the 2026 court term. Then go to Republicans and say “You can let us put four 40-ish Liberals on the Court for lifetime appointments, and gamble on getting your own trifecta to re-pack it, or you can work with us on an amendment to reform the court, put in term limits, and limit its partisanship”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

What’s interesting is that this precise scenario happened in the 1910s in the UK (given that at the time the house of lords was the highest court in the country as well as the upper legislative chamber). Lloyd George called an election on the subject, and negotiated with the king that if the lords didn’t vote for a reduction in their powers, he would create a massive influx of Liberal peers.

Interesting episode in history.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

For number 3, if they really wanted to save us, on their last day the could “officially” order a marine to steal a lollipop from a baby. I’d give it right back, and there may be a better, less painful law, but he could break it and get charged. Maybe speeding. I wonder if there is a precident and another president has been held to the law before. I Grant you that the court in is current state would ignore it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
58 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
10 points

Unfortunately, margarine transfats green wants to carry.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-20 points

Joe… “I beat medicare!”

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Ooh, now do trump! Luckily, I don’t think there is a character limit!

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

A majority of voters are this point are voting for Trump. Democrats need someone better. That is what you should be worried about right now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
43 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
7 points

Have you seen the dumbasses that get elected as judges for lower courts? Lowering the bar doesn’t seem like a good idea to me.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Have you seen the recent dumbasses that have been put on the Supreme Court? There is no bar.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Lot harder to bribe a random pool. Good suggestion. I’d guess you want something like 17 justices though to reduce variability

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 471K

    Comments