• tea@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Articles of impeachment is fine as this process stinks and I think this court failed, but we really, long-term, we need a constitutional amendment to make it clear that this is not okay.

    I love the constitution, wonderful framework, but it needs the following amendments:

    1. Anti-corruption measures on the judiciary (looking at you Thomas). Provide some teeth to enforce recusal and avoid conflicts of interest.

    2. Term limits for justices and age limits on all elected/appointed officials at the highest level (justices, pres/VP, congress). Tie those to either the retirement age or a percentage of life expectancy (as we get older as a society, and work into our later years, federal officials should be able to remain longer too).

    3. Divestment requirements for all federal elected and appointed officials. i.e. no more insider trading, sorry.

    4. Replace the electoral college with a popular vote.

    5. Replace the filibuster with nothing. Fuck that thing. Let the legislators legislate. If, whatever it is, is a bad idea, it’ll be shown to be a bad idea and the next congress will fix it. This is especially important now that Chevron is no more. The court just replaced rules created by executive offices with the most dysfunctional branch of government (congress) without any prospect of undysfuctionalizing themselves.

    6. Congress shouldn’t be allowed to block supreme court justices without a vote. Once they are announced, they have X days to approve/deny or they are auto-approved.

    7. (edit) I can’t believe this has to be done, but the President is not above the law. The president must follow the law while in office, following “official acts” or not. This is a fucking democracy, not a dictatorship.

    While I know there are other ways to approach a lot of these and those ways are easier is not the point of my post. These are things that the constitution is currently WRONG about and it should just be fixed.

    • Adalast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 days ago
      1. Yes please.

      2. The way you framed this is dangerous as conservatives already want to eliminate retirement so everyone who is not rich has to be a wage slave until death. This just gives them incentive.

      3. You will just create a shell game. Their spouses or children or cousins will just suddenly become amazing at trading. Or that weird company that incorporated in the Maldives with Fred Flintstone and Betty Boop as the board of directors will be doing weirdly well, but be out of the reach of the DoJ.

        • Ranked Choice voting, fixed that for ya.
      4. This one I have mixed feelings on. The spirit of the filibuster is good. Its purpose is to allow a minority, or even a single legislator, who feels so strongly about a proposed law to actually fight it. This purpose has been perverted, obviously, but that purpose is important for a truely functioning democracy. The ability for someone who actually sees something nobody else does to pump the brakes is vital. That said, I do believe there need to be severe consequences to doing what is effectively trying to break the legislative process over your knee. Personally, I believe that it should be the nuclear option. If you break that glass, you nuke your whole career in the process. No person who utilizes the filibuster is allowed to hold ANY public office for the rest of their life. Anyone who signs on as a supporter is allowed to hold federal office. Period. If you feel SO strongly that the passing of a law is either abhorrent to your beliefs or is fundamentally flawed in a way that will forever scar our way of life that you feel it is necessary to pull the emergency cord, then you need to have that cord available.

      5. Yeah, and voting is mandatory. I’m not sure if I would allow abstention, but your ass has to mark something down for sure.

      6. I hate that this has to be listed as well. 😮‍💨

      • tea@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago
        1. fair point, agreed. I typically like things that move with changing times so the same logic works in 100, 200 years. Ages are more static than dollar amounts. Not tying the gas tax or minimum wage to inflation or cost of living has put us in a major bind, which is what I was thinking about.

        2. Let them play that game (and hopefully get caught). Better than the in-the-open shit they do now. At least try

        3. I’d rather it not specify so we can play around changing it with laws instead of having it hard coded in the constitution. There are ones that I like even more than straight ranked choice. Just get rid of the EC, though maybe just dictating ranked choice would be the right move.

      • erp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        General Mills added unicorn marbits in 2018, so this sounds appropriate!

      • tea@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 days ago

        This is a “should happen” list not a “will happen” or “could happen” list. No delusions here, just felt good to say it out loud, given today’s news. I’d also take that unicorn. My kids would go bananas.

  • ZK686@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    “Hey everyone, things are NOT going our way in the Supreme Court, and we need to change everything about our judicial, political, and constitutional system!” - Sincerely, Democrats.

  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    3 days ago

    It has become a necessity at this point. That is, if anyone wants to maintain any semblance of sanity

  • UnpopularCrow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    326
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    No need to. Biden can have the 6 corrupt justices killed. He has the immunity and he can pick new justices. If members of the senate refuse to put the new justices on the bench, have them killed too. No rules anymore.

    • TunaCowboy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      98
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      Strategically speaking liberal politicians are backed into a corner and only have two real options:

      1. Seize control preemptively, promoting conservative conspiracy to prophecy, and likely inciting CW2.

      2. Hand over full control come January and hope they continue to maintain some privilege under a new regime.

      They’re already in check, but more concerned with soliciting large donations and collecting hot stick tips.

      • Adalast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        3 days ago

        Liberal politicians do not need to be the ones to make sure #1 happens. The second amendment literally exists so the citizens have the capacity to do that ourselves.

          • Adalast@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 days ago

            It wasn’t a joke from me. Democracy dies when the good man does nothing. I am a good man and I will fight for this democracy, as fucked up as it is. The right believes the left to be weak pacifists because we choose compromise, tolerance, and acceptance over bigotry, hate, and subjugation. They will need to learn the hard way that we choose that because we know that mutually beneficial social contracts make living better and provide a safe, prosperous world. They obviously do not want to be party to these social contracts with me, so I will not allow them any of the safety or benefits.

            • InternetUser2012@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              3 days ago

              He does, but why would the president tell the army to do nothing when the people are rising up against said president? Nobody is that stupid, any rise up against the government will end with the military curb stomping it in about 15 minutes.

              • MonkRome@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                3 days ago

                Domestic wars are never pretty, no matter how powerful the military. Most people in the military don’t serve to shoot their own country. Countries don’t want to damage their own infrastructure or enflame their own people. Oligarchs won’t support a war that damages their bottom line. People vastly over simply how easy it would be to stop an armed resistance.

                • imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  Did you see the police step on people during the blm 2020 marches? They have no problem being fascists

        • njm1314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          When confronted with fascist Threats liberals always blink. They’ll wade through masses of bodies to destroy what they perceive to be a leftist threat, but they don’t stand up to fascists.

          • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 days ago

            All democracies turn into dictatorships - but not by coup. The people give their democracy to a dictator, whether it’s Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler. Ultimately, the general population goes along with the idea.

            George Lucas

            • oo1@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              3 days ago

              Didn’t Caesar literally march his army into Rome? ‘crossing the rubicon’ - and then there was a thing called the roman civil war

              • FanciestPants@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                Yeah. There was also the title, literally “dictator”, that was bestowed on individuals in times of crisis (or perceived crisis), and in some cases the power of the dictator was returned to the republic when the crisis was addressed (see Cincinnatus). Rome had an established process for giving power to the dictator.

      • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Option 2 is suicide. I guess that’s it for American Democracy. Of course, option 3 being that the Democrats win every election until the Republican party collapses. At which point the Democratic party will likely split, with one part becoming a moderate party, and the other half absorbing the remains of the Republican party.

    • sik0fewl@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      The quickest way to save the country would be for Biden to kill the 6 justices that ruled in favour of immunity (and I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t even mind since they’re the ones that made it legal), install 6 liberal judges and the new court can overturn every ruling the corrupt court made. Which means Biden would probably end up in prison, but hey, it’s a small price to pay for democracy.

      • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        Why would he end up in prison? It would not have been a crime when he committed it. That’s what immunity means.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Yep. They made an official ruling, Biden acts on it appropriately, new Justices get appointed in a month (or else), new Court orders a review of every case the six fascists ruled on.

          Oh, what do you know, first out the door, no, extrajudicial murder powers aren’t supported by the Constitution!

          Whoopsie.

          • potpotato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            “Congress may not criminalize the president’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution” makes pretty much anything fair fucking game.

            • Akuden@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              23
              ·
              3 days ago

              “The president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law,”

              I don’t understand how you can confuse this sentence. People act like the president can commit any crime they want. That is categorically false. Crimes committed in the name in the highest office of the land are not o in an official capacity.

              The U.S. Constitution includes several provisions that limit the powers of the president and prevent the president from committing crimes without consequences:

              Article I, Section 2 and Section 3: These sections provide the House of Representatives the power to impeach the president and the Senate the power to try and convict the president. Impeachment is a process by which the president can be removed from office for committing “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Article II, Section 4: This section specifically states that the president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States can be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

              Article II, Section 1, Clause 8: The president must take an oath of office to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” This oath implies a legal and ethical obligation to adhere to the law and Constitution.

              Checks and Balances: The Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances, whereby the legislative and judicial branches can limit the actions of the executive branch. Congress can pass laws, override presidential vetoes, and control the budget, while the judiciary can review the constitutionality of presidential actions through judicial review.

              Together, these provisions and principles ensure that the president is subject to the rule of law and can be held accountable for criminal actions.

      • Rakonat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Supreme court literally just said he could by saying Jan 6 was fine for President to incite

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        If they are traitors and terrorists, he may have to send them to Guantanamo.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        While i agree with you, it’s a huge grey area. Like Biden could have trump assassinated and then claim that his constitutional duties require him to protect the cotus from enemies both foreign and domestic.

        Official act or not?

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Please cite where in the ruling it says charges would be brought against him.

            • Mirshe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              3 days ago

              In fact, it would have to be the DoJ or Congress that did so - Biden could order the DoJ to stop, and arguably could have anyone in Congress killed or jailed without trial by stating that they presented a clear danger to democracy by trying to impeach him.

      • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        118
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Who says he can’t? The Supreme Court just said that he’s immune from “official acts” without even defining what that would mean. Who determines what is and isn’t an official act? The President? The Supreme Court? Right now, as this ruling is worded, all bets are off. There’s nothing stopping a sitting President from just arbitrarily declaring someone as a threat to national security and having them picked off by ST6 as an “official act to prevent a terrorist attack against the United States”, then just having the details classified.

        Having something criminal declared as an “official act” is piss-easy, especially when you’re in charge of the branch making the decision and you have one of the other branches in your back pocket, possibly both.

      • djsoren19@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        You can organize a coup to overthrow the government and claim it’s an official act, there’s absolutely nothing stopping a president from claiming assassinations are an official act now. Hell, the commander in chief already organizes assassinations on foreign targets.

        The Democrats might not abuse this, but the Republicans will, and they have given themselves carte blanche to start killing political dissidents.

      • Butt Pirate@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        53
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        There’s some hyperbole in these threads for sure, but not a lot. The president can’t handwave away the bill of rights, because nothing in the constitution gives them that power.

        However, the president does have the authority as commander in chief of authorizing lethal force against individuals. If Biden authorized Seal Team 6 to execute Trump, that is in fact an official act that he has the authority to perform. Sure maybe it is technically not legal, but that doesn’t matter since the president has complete immunity from criminal law. The house could still draft articles of impeachment but the senate would be unable to remove the president because the president is immune to criminal proceedings.

        And if Trump wants to create an organization to round up and execute all the gays (and the Jews, of course), he has the power to do that; and with today’s ruling, he will never face consequences for doing so.

        Irreparable damage has been done to American democracy today.

      • blazera@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        62
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        Trumps own legal team has described political assassinations as qualifying as an official act as president

          • blazera@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            52
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            It is! in the dissenting opinion in which Sotomayor explicitly describes this ruling as granting immunity for political assassinations

      • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        43
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        The president can’t commit criminal acts and claim it was an official capacity, lol.

        What the fuck do you mean “lol”. That is PRECISELY what this ruling does. It removes criminal liability for anything that is done as an official act, which is entirely fucking subjective, and up to the interpretation of a corrupt, coopted judiciary. Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit.

          • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            24
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            The stupidity of this statement truly strains belief given the actual verbiage in this ruling. May you suffer the full weight and consequences of that stupidity.

          • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            A person of power cannot commit a crime and claim it was in official capacity, because the act itself is against the law and cannot be committed without consequence.

            This whole ruling is because of a person in power (Trump) who committed a crime (fake electors plot to overturn the 2020 election) and is claiming it as an official capacity of the office. That’s the whole point of the case which was appealed to the Supreme Court.

            So what consequence will Trump face for his crimes now based on this ruling?

      • noride@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        But he can commit official acts that happen to be criminal. Semantics are fun!

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    3 days ago

    Well congresswoman, there still is a republican majority so you’re going to have to wait for your chance. In addition, balance of powers and all that.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      If you don’t try, you’ll never succeed.

      There’s no such thing as wasted political capital these days, shit like this energizes the base, and this is probably the biggest thing to help Biden (or whoever the candidate is) all year.

      trumpers are already jacked up on Mountain Dew, they can’t vote any harder then they already are and they’re not gonna vote any less. We need the focus on motivating Dem voters.

      And win or lose, this does that.

      Show voters that with X amount more votes. We can actually fix something. It’s a few months before the election, this is literally perfect timing.

      • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        3 days ago

        Sorry, but she can’t try. The floor is controlled by Republicans and they will not let her proceed.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          3 days ago

          Right…

          Which will highlight to the country that a Republican House matters right before an election is coming up and donations will make a huge difference in races…

          What dem voters want is to know that their votes matter. And this shows them what happens because of the 2022 midterms and will lead to increased turnout in 2024.

          It’s not “all or nothing”. To beat fascism we need to never stop fighting even when the odds are astronomically against suceeding.

          It’s not even politics at this point, it’s basic psychology. We need to give voters what they want, and right now Dem voters want to fight fascism.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              Welcome to America

              We can sit around and talk about how the average voter should do better on their own out of a sense of civic duty…

              Or we can do what we know will motivate them.

              Which do you think is more productive?

              • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                3 days ago

                You can talk now.

                I doubt talking about something you can’t do could be called productive.

                • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 days ago

                  Nice.

                  So we agreed:

                  Or we can do what we know will motivate them

                  Which is “performative” stuff like this that won’t succeed, but will energize voters leading to more dems in office across the board.

    • goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Sounds like something that would be a popular thing to campaign on.

      and too bad supreme court doesn’t think that exists anymore

  • Furbag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    122
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    Like seriously, I’m tired of whining on the internet about this shit. Where can I go to learn about joining a protest? It’s better that doing fuck all by tut-tutting the establishment hellbent on fucking us over while they count their money.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      You can have it, if enough people fight for it. Now the president can practically do it all by himself.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 days ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The Democrat from New York wrote that the court has become “consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control” and that it’s “up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture.”

    The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control.Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy.

    It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture.I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.

    In a statement after the ruling, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that Democrats would “engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court to ensure that the extreme, far-right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution.”

    But the act of filing impeachment articles represents a significant escalation in Democrats’ efforts to exercise greater oversight over the high court, which has faced numerous ethics scandals in recent years while issuing a spate of conservative opinions that have upended decades of precedent, including the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022.

    The last (and only) time a Supreme Court Justice has been impeached was 220 years ago, when Samuel Chase survived an effort to remove him in 1804 over his handling of two politically sensitive trials.


    The original article contains 357 words, the summary contains 208 words. Saved 42%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!