- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.
The lack of term limits exists to allow judges to be impartial. The President should explain the ideology of how the checks and balances of government will be effected.
Hypocrisy. For centuries power has been concentrated into the executive branch. A member of SCOTUS called for ethics enforcement. The executive responds by proposing to further concentrate power.
The executive wishes to constitutionally codify that future Presidents cannot present and cover up as poorly as Trump. Once Biden flubbed his lines the situation was at risk of a repeat. If the masses believe it’s fucked then it’s very bad for corporate profits. Profit maximization now requires a means to remove a President.
Well THAT clearly doesn’t work!
Nonsense. They unanimously approved NON-BINDING rules for themselves. That’s the OPPOSITE of enforcement.
Did Harlan Crow put you up to this bullshit?
Largely agree with you but I think the user is referring to Justice Kagan’s comments the other day about enforcing the code of ethics: https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/25/politics/kagan-supreme-court-ethics-sacramento-conference/index.html
Doesn’t really change much though.
The concentration of power in the executive branch has only occurred in the last 40 years or so with the push for “unified executive theory”. It has accelerated with this supreme Court in just the last couple of years. The court has shown themselves ready to ignore their own precedents, pick and choose historical arguments to buttress outcomes, and substitute their own judgement for Congress’s. There is no check on this madness except for court reform.
Every time the federal passes a law they’re empowered at the expense of the states. The executive has been influencing and leading legislative efforts since Washington empowered Hamilton.
But, I think I understand where you’re coming from. The federal executive has, since the beginning, also been also accumulating power primarily at the expense of the federal legislative. And, just like most everything else that sucks today, it was the Reagan administration that kicked it up a notch.
No reform of courts will suffice because the rest of the system is also broken.
Fuck state’s rights. The states don’t need rights
Yeah! And while we’re at it, neither do corporations! Only people and animals get rights!!
I’m from above with all the down votes. We’re headed in the same direction: fuck corporate personhood. Well done.
I support corporate personhood.
Now let’s go ahead and bust out the electric bleachers and take care of entire boards of directors for causing so much damage. They are people, afterall.
wat
Agreed wholeheartedly.
What does that mean?
I ask because I’m very much a fan of the additional civil rights protections that apply to my family members in blue states, and those definitely wouldn’t get passed nationally. I’m not a fam of the state laws that specifically prohibit those protections, but they seem more likely to get passed nationally.
We could absolutely do away with the electoral college though, as it’s straight up anti-democratic.
States rights crowd isn’t talking about giving additional civil rights. They are, and always have been, about stripping away as many minorities rights as possible.
I’ll say it again fuck States Rights.
Agreed about the EC, and I would love some RCV
Or just get rid of the whole 50 states thing. Do we really need two Dakotas or Carolinas?
Hey! The 512 people in South Dakota and 2 in North Dakota need equal representation!
Obviously term limits don’t ensure impartiality. Fixed limits introduce an element of damage control.
I agree. Note that my argument was that the lack of limits allows the possibility of impartial judgement.
What’s the opportunity cost?
I dunno, but 8 year limits means that every president will have an opportunity for a do over instead of entrenching a bias for decades.
That might not be the greatest thing either. The court acting on the opportunity for a do-over gave us the overturning of Roe.
I hear you, but that was a planned ambush. They did the thing that they said they wouldn’t do in the confirmation hearings. That has nothing to do with term limits. In fact, term limits would make that easier to undo.
This comment kind of rips itself apart for anyone who knows anything about US government
How about all having ethics be enforceable, and just keep them on the salary?
First, you think they are just going to give straight year term limits and be done with it? They have people far smarter than us writing this shit. It’ll likely be some sort thing where each presidential term gets to pick a new judge, while making sure the longest serving is removed. I don’t know, I saw someone talk about a way that would ensure it’s fair and no partisanship can sustain generations.
Also, the government will be affected, is what you wanted to say.
To help remember the correct one using RPGs, you cast an effect on someone, which has an affect on them some how.
That’s exactly what the SCOTUS justice recently requested. But, that’s not at all what’s been proposed by the President.
He literally said enforceable code of ethics. It sounds like that is exactly what he is proposing.
And we haven’t even seen the actual plan yet lol
ELI5, How does no term limits allow for impartiality?
It doesn’t. Sometimes adults lie to you because they have an agenda.
Being capped at serving for x (ie: 8) years though would help prevent the situation we’re in now as well as the need to worry about performance reviews by the electorate or congress.
Yeah I don’t really see the line of reasoning either. Term limits doesn’t automatically mean 4 year terms and re-election campaigns. It can just be single 8-10 year terms or retirement age, whatever comes first.
Not having a term limit should keep you impartial since you don’t have to keep people happy, you just need to do what you believe is correct in the eyes of the law. The problem is that it also removes accountability.
not to mention the bribery that should be strictly illegal
I’m sure when people talk about SCOTUS term limits they mean ONE term for 8 or more years. Partiality or partisanship only comes into play when your personal interests interfere (hence, binding ethics reform) or when you need to get another job after your term. I would want a term-limited justice to get moved into a different Federal Court to finish their career.
ELI5 is for someone else to provide. I’ll instead give you the answer an adult deserves.
Compare a SCOTUS justice to any legislator or the President: The legislators and President must act as their corporate donors wish or they’ll not be re-elected. But, the fundamental ideology of the US (and prerequisite to a world I wish to live in) mandates that the minority be protected from the majority and the majority from the mediocre outcomes of democracy.
This role is never safe, politic, or popular. The lack of term limits allows SCOTUS justices to judge without these concerns. We hope they act for the People. But, we also risk of them acting as they do now.
The system is broken. But, the proposed changes make it arguably much worse as they limit the ability for the system to self-recover in the future. They appear at best to be kicking the can to future generations (typical boomer shit).
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.
You’re not presenting as one, at all.
Ethics code development and enforcement for sitting justices, just as the sitting justice requested.
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?
No. A sitting justice proposed the solution. It’s not mine.
With wthics enforcement Thomas, for example, would be removed in short order.
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.
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.
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.
Ok next question, because I think I interpreted the term differently than you did.
There are two types of term limits right? Quantity of terms, and length of terms.
Status quo: Q - one term, L - for life.
Wouldn’t limiting the length but not the quantity maintain the incentive for impartiality? So there is no concept of a second term?
I’m not trolling btw, I’m looking for an honest airing of the Q.
You’re not coming across that way. edit: meaning I’m perceiving good faith
I’m not understanding how implementing a length limit but not a quantity limit would positively effect impartiality. That’s what currently exists for the entirety of legislature. They’re far from free to make their own choices.
But, what if we had both a length limit and a term limit of one term? That seems a decent idea on the surface. But, I want to think about it for awhile before saying anything meaningful
For an Internet discussion, I really appreciate your open and honest exchange. Good day fellow Internet person.
Myself as well. You and another have me questioning how it could be done well instead of only attacking the systemic corruption.
I dug up what appears to be a decent academic paper on the subject. I know I’ve no time to read it for at least three weeks. In about a month I may try to grab your attention again.
Thank you for engaging in good faith despite the bandwagon downvotes.
I read the academic paper I found. And, I’ve had a first conversation about this with another IRL.
I still think length term limits on Justices is like many other good ideas: There’s no practical way to implement. All would result in severe collateral damage due to the nature and complexity of the systemic context. But, my reasoning is much more nuanced.
Thank you. I appreciate that you pushed me along.
This does not explain how limiting a supreme court justice to serving for 20 years instead of for life would result in them losing impartiality.
You’d have to ask the question about a 20 year term to receive my perspective.
That’s generally what’s been the proposal when talking about scotus term limits. So when you answered the question of “how does scotus term limits affect impartiality?” it really ought to cover that.
I appreciate that you hold me to a higher standard than the status quo.
If we were to do this then 20 years and limitation to a single term seems prudent on the surface. But, I’ve yet to consider the effects upon the rest of governance in adequate nuance or for a responsible scope of time.
So, push me along.
Do you think it’s a good idea to impose a limit of 20 years?
Does it function as you wish if there could be a second term?
FTFY
Hi SirDerpy. I think that the downvotes you are getting reflect disagreement with your opinions and it’s one thing I wish hadn’t translated from Reddit to this type of community. Too bad there aren’t “up/down votes for contribution” along side a set of others for agree/disagree. I perceive that your comments are thoughtful from your point of view, and I feel they contribute to the conversation. As such I am upvoting them.
checks username
FUCK you, I won’t do what you tell me!
(In case there’s any doubt, this Raging Against you is purely a silly bit, not meant as a totally uncalled for personal attack 😁)
I’ve been using the name since my first bbs login in 94. Band formed in 2001.
Also screw Bert Kreischer for making people assume I am an imitating fan!
Took you a while to piss them off enough that they formed a band about it, I guess 😁
Screw that hack in general, really…
Hey now, don’t make assumptions! That could very well be Florence, after all.
Nah, it’s Florence AND The Machine, not Florence The Machine.
Now that you mention it, though, I wonder whether Florence ever had beef with Tom Morello 🤔
Foiled again!
Seems I want to share. I’ve been at this, off and on, for a long time.
I say the basically the same things over time. As we as a society slowly progress in our collective understanding the reaction to those things suddenly changes. For example, they hated what I had to say about Biden stepping down until he did and everyone could see the results. The reaction to identical comments was reversed overnight.
I’m not here to be safe, politic, or popular. I don’t want everyone to agree with me. I only want them to learn their systems, to reason their perspectives, and to communicate them with adequate nuance to be easily respected.
I appreciate you. I assume there’s ten like you for every one that speaks up. Sincerely, thank you for speaking up and for reading this comment. It feels good to be understood.
I cannot parse this comment. The wording is, at best, awkward