I was saying online in Aug 2024, right after the SCOTUS ruled that sitting Presidents were immune for all 'official acts', that the Democrats should have convinced Biden to immediately remove all sitting SCOTUS judges which the previous GOP admins had installed, all GOP-installed state SC judges, GOP-installed FBI, IRS staff, etc., impose maximum age and term limits for all judges, and explicitly limit the powers of all future Presidents and close as many loopholes everywhere as possible. I mean, what could they really do? They'd just handed all sitting Presidents including Biden that power, he'd be immune! Or they'd have their bluff called and have reversed their decision right there and then.

But of course the two parties are really not opposing, the Dems are just Controlled Opposition so they wouldn't dare actually fix things when they had the chance.

[–] JakenVeina@midwest.social 6 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

The thing about that ruling is that it doesn't grant presidential immunity. It was actually a power grab by SCOTUS.

As you say, the ruling states that presidents are immune for "official acts", but it also puts SCOTUS as the sole arbiter of what counts as an "official act".

[–] core@leminal.space 2 points 4 hours ago

Good thing the president can remove and install judges who agree with him.

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 7 points 15 hours ago

The FedSoc jackasses didn't give presidents blanket immunity.

They designed a special kind of immunity that only applies if they say it does. They directly inserted so that they could say that everything a democratic president did was illegal.

[–] tabarnaski@sh.itjust.works 8 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not a lawyer, but in my view the presidential immunity doesn't mean the president can do anything he wants. It just means he can't be personally prosecuted for his actions.

So it didn't give Biden the right to remove whoever he could: the legal process to impeach a Supreme Court judge would still hold. It just means that if he killed a political enemy, he couldn't be prosecuted for murder.

Still a shitty ruling though.

[–] Zirconium@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago

He could perhaps have the power to order people to be killed and Biden himself would have not faced prosecution

[–] youcantreadthis@quokk.au 14 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

I think impeaching them is unnecessary a simple hanging and seizure of all assets should be sufficient if their graves are sufficiently marked let's not let things get out of hand here

[–] TacoButtPlug@sh.itjust.works 11 points 21 hours ago

"The argument we are making is that hundreds of federal judges, including six sitting Supreme Court justices, should face impeachment and removal from office for their association with an ideology that is antithetical to the duties, responsibilities, and expectations of their position."

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.cafe 7 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

I used to believe that we needed to add 4 more SCOTUS seats, but I no longer believe that. Now I think we should add 20 more SCOTUS seats.

The distribution of the court shouldn't be so tight that one bad faith president can negatively influence policy for the next half century. We need a court that's too big to game with a few seats, along with term limits, and rolling election dates. That way, every president gets to appoint a few, but not enough to distort the results.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 8 hours ago

having odd numbers ensures that republicans always have the advantage most of the time.

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 6 points 15 hours ago

A rotating court, selected at random for each case, pulled from the ranks of federal appeals jugdes and public defense attorneys.