A leading House Democrat is preparing a constitutional amendment in response to the Supreme Court’s landmark immunity ruling, seeking to reverse the decision “and ensure that no president is above the law.”

Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York, the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, sent a letter to colleagues informing them of his intent to file the resolution, which would kickstart what’s traditionally a cumbersome amendment process.

“This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do — prioritize our democracy,” Morelle said in a statement to AP.

It’s the most significant legislative response yet to the decision this week from the court’s conservative majority, which stunned Washington and drew a sharp dissent from the court’s liberal justices warning of the perils to democracy, particularly as Trump seeks a return to the White House. Still, the effort stands almost no chance of succeeding in this Congress.

        • a lil bee 🐝
          link
          876 months ago

          Why would they care? They’re proud of it. Their voters are proud of it.

          • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)
            link
            fedilink
            English
            49
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            I think the Democrats need to do a much larger PSA about what exactly this means. I’m not sure 100% of Trumps cult, or many moderates, would be cool with knowing that Biden right now could have his DOJ lock up basically anyone in the US, with no reason needed, and then pardon them (his DOJ). This would all be actions that cannot be questioned, or used against the President as he has full immunity to:

            1. pardon anyone for anything
            2. command his DOJ

            Those are the 2 examples that the Supreme Court majority gave as examples in their “ruling”, and they gave both a completely made up unconstitutional condition of immunity that cannot be used against the President, or questioned/debated in any way. These 2 items are a gift to Trump in their hope that he takes the white house and will allow him to round up everyone he wants and put them in death camps if he wanted. He orders his DOJ to do it, pardons them all, and it’s all above the law with no possible oversight available. But I think if more people on the right knew that Biden has this power right now, BUT!, if some on the left get their way and they replace Biden on the ballot, and they win, that person would now wield this absolute power.

            Edit - Extra words =(

            • @grue
              link
              English
              166 months ago

              The most effective way to get the word out would be a demonstration on Biden’s part. He could show how dangerous the power is and get rid of the traitorous fascists who created it at the same time.

              • @alchemist2023
                link
                106 months ago

                yeah like go round them up and put them in a room. you gave me this power. now resign. all of you, or seal team 6 takes you out. boom. then Biden chooses the judges he wants, reverts the immunity and rolls back all the recent crap. fixes everything. easy. no more of a coup than the Nazis have done. but now it’s legal do it. for your very lives, do it, coz you guys are real real real close to fucking it up for everyone else too

      • @frickineh
        link
        366 months ago

        What we need is for a Democratic president to do something bananas and claim immunity. I bet at least the less crazy Republicans would suddenly see how that could be a problem. Maybe if Joe set one of the conservative justices on fire as an official act.

        But seriously, they have no problem with hypocrisy so that probably still wouldn’t help.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          156 months ago

          I think the Republicans would just use that as an excuse to do something even crazier at their first opportunity

        • @PunnyName
          link
          86 months ago

          Hypocrisy is a tool for the GQP

        • @takeda
          link
          46 months ago

          Provide a free retirement ticket to Guantanamo Bay.

        • @jaybone
          link
          16 months ago

          Yeah, they wouldn’t get it.

        • @grue
          link
          English
          16 months ago

          deleted by creator

      • @Fedizen
        link
        12
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        it will happen easily if biden wins. If the court majority becomes 5-4 liberal republicans will absolutely hop on board. Thats why dems should also float an electoral college reform and an amendment to ban gerrymandering. Even a ban on courts creating “immunity rules” should be floated since immunity is something that shouldn’t be handed out as often as the supreme court does it.

        The amendment process is long and difficult and honestly being just willing to go through the extra steps makes good headlines.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          76 months ago

          The supreme court has nothing to do with constitutional amendments. To propose one you need a 2/3 majority vote in both the house and senate (or 2/3 of states calling a constitutional convention, but no amendment has gone through this process). Then, it requires that 75% of the states ratify it.

          There’s no chance the amendment will even get 2/3 of the congressional vote, much less 75% of states agreeing to it.

          • @Fedizen
            link
            4
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            to change some of the rules around the court you need an amendment because they’re in the constitution (lifetime appointments, for instance.)

            The 11th amendment was explicitly also added to overturn a supreme court ruling, so historically passing an amendment was not always a problem and if its a problem now maybe some effort should be placed into fixing the difficulty problem as well.

            • @grue
              link
              English
              36 months ago

              to change some of the rules around the court you need an amendment because they’re in the constitution (lifetime appointments, for instance.)

              Or the President would need to use the new powers the court gave him on it, until the remaining justices decided to change the rules themselves.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              16 months ago

              The difficulty is that our governments and voters are so polarized that an amendment banning the government from drowning puppies wouldn’t have a chance in hell of getting passed.

              Half of the country wants the supreme court ruling to stay.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            36 months ago

            Unfortunately you are right on this one. They couldn’t even get Equal Rights Ammendment passed and it was proposed in 1923. It got tossed around and talked about and got close to being ratified over the past century but ultimately didnt make it through.

            Then in 2019 Alabama, Louisiana and South Dakota actually sued to prevent ERA from bring ratified when it was brought up again. That’s how much some states hate progress.

            It’ll be interesting to see how this one plays out though. Will they kill it immediately or will it sit around in limbo for a century?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        46 months ago

        I propose Biden start having the military shoot those that oppose the amendment and see how long it takes to get it passed.

    • Rimu
      link
      fedilink
      226 months ago

      An amendment requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

      It’s worth a try but don’t pin all your hopes on it.

      • @makyo
        link
        English
        156 months ago

        And that’s only half the battle - then 3/4 of the state legislatures must pass it as well

        • Doubletwist
          link
          36 months ago

          I thought it’s an either or thing, as two different paths to possibly get an amendment passed, not that it needs both.??