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.

  • LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world
    18·
    3 months ago

    So you agree that the current set up of the supreme court is flawed because they are making decisions overturning decades of precedence and putting human rights on the chopping block. What would you rather see done? Because as it stands, it’ll likely take at least a decade if not 3 decades to recover from the current conservative bent of the court. A time when rights will continue to be overturned. Should we not try to fix things now by imposing term limits so the justices aren’t able to die on the bench or be appointed for 40 years? Should we accept that people’s rights are gonna be thrown out because of a 40 years long mission by the Christian right to bring the country back to the 50s?

    Not trying to be an asshole. I’d really like to know what you’d rather do.

    • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
      319·
      3 months ago

      Not trying to be an asshole.

      You’re not presenting as one, at all.

      I’d really like to know what you’d rather do.

      Ethics code development and enforcement for sitting justices, just as the sitting justice requested.

      • LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world
        141·
        3 months ago

        So, your solution is just ethics enforcement? How would that help with current justices choosing to read the constitution in a way that removes rights? Ethics is definitely important, but it won’t change constitutional originalism from impacting us for decades. What’s your opinion on just expanding the court?

        • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
          25·
          3 months ago

          So, your solution is just ethics enforcement?

          No. A sitting justice proposed the solution. It’s not mine.

          How would that help with current justices choosing to read the constitution in a way that removes rights?

          With wthics enforcement Thomas, for example, would be removed in short order.

          What’s your opinion on just expanding the court?

          If Democrats expand the court then Republicans will escalate the next time they win the Presidency. In order to overcome the immediate issues responsibly, Democrats would need to expand the court and prevent any future retaliatory expansion.

          I’ll not answer if I believe they should or should not. I present facts and reasoning to enhance wisdom of others’ choices. But, there’s no “right” or “good” answer here. My conclusion doesn’t matter. It’d only hinder others in choosing for themselves.

          • LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world
            3·
            3 months ago

            Okay I think I understand more about what you’re arguing for. Ethics with actual consequences, meaning removal. That makes worlds more sense.

            One thing I disagree with is that your conclusion doesn’t matter. Reading others reasoning and their conclusion is important for people who haven’t made a decision, then making their decisions. I’ve made my decision personally, and even though I disagree with you on parts, I think it’s important to be able to not just discuss facts but ones own conclusion drawn from those facts. Not saying you’re not capable of discussing more than facts, just that I think you should be more willing to discuss your own conclusions as well. Connecting the dots of facts and reasoning is only half of the battle, people can look at those and not think about what the conclusion could be. Or draw conclusions that are completely contradictory of what reasoning was provided. Theory isn’t just facts but also conclusions. And discussion in a public forum like this can be important for those willing to learn.

            • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
              12·
              3 months ago

              Okay I think I understand more about what you’re arguing for. Ethics with actual consequences, meaning removal. That makes worlds more sense.

              It feels good to be understood. I appreciate you.

              I agree with the entirety of the rest of what you’ve said. However, it assumes that the rest of the audience is as reasonable and committed to good faith as we seem to be. I’ve absolutely no issues expressing myself to a different audience. For example, if it was just you and I speaking in private then I’d believe it responsible, wise, and perhaps my obligation to society to say more.