US president also to seek constitutional amendment to limit immunity for presidents and various officeholders

US president also to seek constitutional amendment to limit immunity for presidents and various officeholders

Joe Biden will announce plans to reform the US supreme court on Monday, Politico reported, citing two people familiar with the matter, adding that the US president was likely to back term limits for justices and an enforceable code of ethics.

Biden said earlier this week during an Oval Office address that he would call for reform of the court.

He is also expected to seek a constitutional amendment to limit immunity for presidents and some other officeholders, Politico reported, in the aftermath of a July supreme court ruling that presidents have broad immunity from prosecution.

Biden will make the announcement in Texas on Monday and the specific proposals could change, the report added.

  • eran_morad@lemmy.world
    851·
    5 months ago

    Seems to me he’s using his last months in office to highlight issues that will damage the republican traitor filth as his VP campaigns to save the Republic.

  • d00phy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    691·
    5 months ago

    Need a new amendment enforcing federal retirement age on elected and appointed people. If you hit it during your term, you can’t run again. If you position is appointed, you have a year to step down.

    Also need a federal law correcting the recent bribery ruling, and applying it to ALL federal employees, political and non-political. Call it the Thomas Act.

    • Ænima@lemm.ee
      412·
      5 months ago

      Wouldn’t that be funny? Biden, in his last months in office, sets term limits on Congress that would have also booted him! That would be the most epic walking away while something explodes behind you kind of moment.

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        141·
        5 months ago

        It would be great but the President has no such power. Congress, a group of geriatric kleptocrats, aren’t going to legislate against themselves continuing to steal millions with insider trading.

        • uis@lemm.ee
          2·
          5 months ago

          Congress, a group of geriatric kleptocrats

          Well, they aren’t as geriatric and kleptocratic as United Russia.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      32·
      5 months ago

      Age discrimination. Term limits or length of service would be more fair.

      • Sarmyth@lemmy.world
        4·
        5 months ago

        Age discrimination is codified. Minimum president age is 35, senator is 30, and congressperson is 25. No reason for it but age discrimination. If we can’t put a ceiling they need to remove the floor.

      • Valmond@lemmy.world
        31·
        5 months ago

        Yeah dude, electing some 30 yo who can just sit and wreck havoc for 60 years, where’s the logic behind that?

        • stoly@lemmy.world
          3·
          5 months ago

          I’ll be honest: I don’t know what you’re saying here. Can’t tell if you’re agreeing or disagreeing with me.

          • Valmond@lemmy.world
            21·
            5 months ago

            Term limits are more fair, basically. So I agree with you. Hence the “yeah” 😋

      • Liz@midwest.socialEnglish
        21·
        5 months ago

        It’s my understanding that term limits actually end up making for a worse government, because then you end to with a higher fraction of people who are new at their job. Like any other high-skill job, it can take a year or more before you start to get good at what you’re supposed to be doing. Too many freshman means there’s less continuity and stability in the government.

        But this is all just a vague understanding, I haven’t read up on it intentionally.

        • untorquer@lemmy.world
          21·
          5 months ago

          Well without them you end up with highly skilled populous fascists instead of mediocre ones. So what we have too much of already. I’d rather have new ideas with an underskilled attempt to accomplish them than the status quo expertly shifting the overton window to the right. Some instability can be good when the alternative is a set of dynasties focused on their own benefit at the express detriment of others.

  • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    191·
    5 months ago

    Presidential immunity is already unconstitutional. This Court would just ignore the new amendment like they do the current constitution.

    • shastaxc@lemm.ee
      1·
      5 months ago

      At that point, the president with his immunity can swoop in and have their asses thrown in Guantanamo

  • blackstampede@sh.itjust.works
    18·
    5 months ago

    I have near-zero hope this happens, but I hope it does. At least someone is worried about presidents with immunity- even leftist commentators seem to be just shrugging it off.

  • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
    7·
    5 months ago

    But one of the first things Congress did in 1789, the year the new government got going, was to set up a federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court—with six Justices. source

    So get rid of 3 of them. Thomas. Alito. Roberts.

  • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
    7158·
    5 months ago

    Joe Biden will announce plans to reform the US supreme court on Monday… the US president was likely to back term limits for justices and an enforceable code of ethics.

    The lack of term limits exists to allow judges to be impartial. The President should explain the ideology of how the checks and balances of government will be effected.

    US supreme court grabbing ‘ultimate power’, Biden reform adviser says

    Hypocrisy. For centuries power has been concentrated into the executive branch. A member of SCOTUS called for ethics enforcement. The executive responds by proposing to further concentrate power.

    He is also expected to seek a constitutional amendment to limit immunity for presidents and some other officeholders, Politico reported, in the aftermath of a July supreme court ruling that presidents have broad immunity from prosecution.

    The executive wishes to constitutionally codify that future Presidents cannot present and cover up as poorly as Trump. Once Biden flubbed his lines the situation was at risk of a repeat. If the masses believe it’s fucked then it’s very bad for corporate profits. Profit maximization now requires a means to remove a President.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      991·
      5 months ago

      The lack of term limits exists to allow judges to be impartial

      Well THAT clearly doesn’t work!

      A member of SCOTUS called for ethics enforcement

      Nonsense. They unanimously approved NON-BINDING rules for themselves. That’s the OPPOSITE of enforcement.

      Did Harlan Crow put you up to this bullshit?

    • Dr. Bob@lemmy.caEnglish
      42·
      5 months ago

      The concentration of power in the executive branch has only occurred in the last 40 years or so with the push for “unified executive theory”. It has accelerated with this supreme Court in just the last couple of years. The court has shown themselves ready to ignore their own precedents, pick and choose historical arguments to buttress outcomes, and substitute their own judgement for Congress’s. There is no check on this madness except for court reform.

      • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
        447·
        5 months ago

        Every time the federal passes a law they’re empowered at the expense of the states. The executive has been influencing and leading legislative efforts since Washington empowered Hamilton.

        But, I think I understand where you’re coming from. The federal executive has, since the beginning, also been also accumulating power primarily at the expense of the federal legislative. And, just like most everything else that sucks today, it was the Reagan administration that kicked it up a notch.

        No reform of courts will suffice because the rest of the system is also broken.

          • Ænima@lemm.ee
            10·
            5 months ago

            Yeah! And while we’re at it, neither do corporations! Only people and animals get rights!!

            • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
              62·
              5 months ago

              I’m from above with all the down votes. We’re headed in the same direction: fuck corporate personhood. Well done.

              • Ragnarok314159
                11·
                5 months ago

                I support corporate personhood.

                Now let’s go ahead and bust out the electric bleachers and take care of entire boards of directors for causing so much damage. They are people, afterall.

          • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
            5·
            5 months ago

            What does that mean?

            I ask because I’m very much a fan of the additional civil rights protections that apply to my family members in blue states, and those definitely wouldn’t get passed nationally. I’m not a fam of the state laws that specifically prohibit those protections, but they seem more likely to get passed nationally.

            We could absolutely do away with the electoral college though, as it’s straight up anti-democratic.

            • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
              3·
              5 months ago

              States rights crowd isn’t talking about giving additional civil rights. They are, and always have been, about stripping away as many minorities rights as possible.

              I’ll say it again fuck States Rights.

              Agreed about the EC, and I would love some RCV

            • Ragnarok314159
              2·
              5 months ago

              Hey! The 512 people in South Dakota and 2 in North Dakota need equal representation!

    • slickgoat@lemmy.world
      37·
      5 months ago

      Obviously term limits don’t ensure impartiality. Fixed limits introduce an element of damage control.

      • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
        113·
        5 months ago

        Obviously term limits don’t ensure impartiality.

        I agree. Note that my argument was that the lack of limits allows the possibility of impartial judgement.

        Fixed limits introduce an element of damage control.

        What’s the opportunity cost?

        • slickgoat@lemmy.world
          17·
          5 months ago

          I dunno, but 8 year limits means that every president will have an opportunity for a do over instead of entrenching a bias for decades.

          • codenamekino@lemmy.world
            17·
            5 months ago

            That might not be the greatest thing either. The court acting on the opportunity for a do-over gave us the overturning of Roe.

            • slickgoat@lemmy.world
              91·
              5 months ago

              I hear you, but that was a planned ambush. They did the thing that they said they wouldn’t do in the confirmation hearings. That has nothing to do with term limits. In fact, term limits would make that easier to undo.

    • takeda@lemmy.world
      20·
      5 months ago

      The lack of term limits exists to allow judges to be impartial. The President should explain the ideology of how the checks and balances of government will be effected.

      How about all having ethics be enforceable, and just keep them on the salary?

      • Ænima@lemm.ee
        2·
        5 months ago

        First, you think they are just going to give straight year term limits and be done with it? They have people far smarter than us writing this shit. It’ll likely be some sort thing where each presidential term gets to pick a new judge, while making sure the longest serving is removed. I don’t know, I saw someone talk about a way that would ensure it’s fair and no partisanship can sustain generations.

        Also, the government will be affected, is what you wanted to say.

        To help remember the correct one using RPGs, you cast an effect on someone, which has an affect on them some how.

      • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
        241·
        5 months ago

        That’s exactly what the SCOTUS justice recently requested. But, that’s not at all what’s been proposed by the President.