853
submitted 2 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

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
[-] ReCursing@lemmings.world 158 points 2 months ago

I still think the correct response to that would have been Biden unilaterally ordering the arrest of the supreme court, citing the immunity they had just granted him. Then asking if maybe they would like to change their mind and not actually arresting them

[-] archomrade@midwest.social 58 points 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months ago

The next seated judges would.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months 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 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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 2 months ago

Keep arresting them.

load more comments (13 replies)
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
853 points (99.4% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3740 users here now

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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS