853

In an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court's immunity decision, Schumer introduces the No Kings Act (apnews.com)

submitted 1 month ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

93 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will introduce legislation Thursday reaffirming that presidents do not have immunity for criminal actions, an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last month.

Schumer’s No Kings Act would attempt to invalidate the decision by declaring that presidents are not immune from criminal law and clarifying that Congress, not the Supreme Court, determines to whom federal criminal law is applied.

The court’s conservative majority decided July 1 that presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken within their official duties — a decision that threw into doubt the Justice Department’s case against Republican former President Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

Schumer, of New York, said that Congress has an obligation and the constitutional authority to check the Supreme Court on its decision.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] archomrade@midwest.social 58 points 1 month ago

The problem with this ruling was that they left "official act" incredibly vague, giving the SC the power in determining legitimate acts that are immune

People keep saying Biden should just order a drone strike on the justices or his opponent but the next court could just be like 'nope, not allowed' and throw him in jail

They really need to clarify it so that the SC can't legislate from the bench

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 26 points 1 month ago

left “official act” incredibly vague, giving the SC the power in determining legitimate acts that are immune

For the last few decades conservatives have been building a SCOTUS with the sole intent of centralizing as much power as possible within them as they aren't elected and have lifetime positions. They go for the youngest heritage foundation choices so they can retain that power for as long as possible.

Chevron Deference is another perfect example of a power grab by the corrupt SCOTUS.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 month ago

The problem with this ruling was that they left “official act” incredibly vague, giving the SC the power in determining legitimate acts that are immune

But if they were arrested they wouldn't be able to rule against Biden. 🤔

[-] archomrade@midwest.social -3 points 1 month ago

The next seated judges would.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 month ago

Even if they did, so what? Good, even!

As long as the fascists are removed from the Court, the job is done.

[-] archomrade@midwest.social 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Sure, but it increases the volatility and partisan nature of the court

I don't think SC reform is optional, nor do I think executive immunity is a solution. A fun one-time trick to make a point isn't going to fix the systemic issues of the court or legislature.

Edit: a huge symptom of the dysfunction of the federal government is the power that's accumulating into the executive. 'You can do whatever you want so long as the court happens to agree with you' is just shit politics.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I'm not really sold on constitutionalism, but the least we could do is make it democratic.

Appoint every adult in America to the Supreme Court and let the majority decide what the Constitution means. 🤷‍♀️

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

Keep arresting them.

this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024

853 points (99.4% liked)

politics

18821 readers

5072 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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.
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.
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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
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.
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