Biden spoke and proposed:
Establish 18-year term limits for all justices
Create a code of ethics that includes requirements to disclose gifts and refrain from public political actions
Pass a new constitutional amendment that would virtually reverse the
supreme court decision in July granting former presidents broad immunity from prosecution for actions taken while in office
How likely is it that Harris would be able to deliver these?
.
Zero chance.
Biden spoke and proposed:
Establish 18-year term limits for all justices
Create a code of ethics that includes requirements to disclose gifts and refrain from public political actions
Pass a new constitutional amendment that would virtually reverse the
supreme court decision in July granting former presidents broad immunity from prosecution for actions taken while in office
How likely is it that Harris would be able to deliver these?
zero chance but it what has been said over and over should be the case… it seems the US federal government has a problem with law and order?
One would think that would be the bare minimum expected of an institution like the Supreme Court…but here we are.
For Harris to implement this there are two main hurdles. First, she would have to win the election. Second, three of the conservative judges would have to retire or die such that the court switches to a liberal majority. Then the GOP would think it was a great idea.
For Harris to implement this there are two main hurdles. First, she would have to win the election. Second, three of the conservative judges would have to retire or die such that the court switches to a liberal majority. Then the GOP would think it was a great idea.
What’s the mechanism for any of it to happen?
Term limits would need to a constitutional amendment. The ethics rules is probably just a simple law. Not sure what the Presidential immunity would take.
was listening to some of the chat yesterday about separation of powers and issues with the executive branch wanting changes to the judicial branch. Supreme Court don’t seem to have an issue when it is the other way round - legislative branch making changes to the power of the executive branch.
Yes that is a zero given the need for a constitutional amendment for at least immunity. If the President doesn’t have at least some form of immunity for official acts hard to see them doing their job. Sending a bunch of people to the Capital knowing they will likely riot isn’t an official act and neither is storing scores of bankers boxes of classified documents after you are no longer President though. I guess the difficult thing is what sort of limits to immunity. Maybe there should be something like the ability of Congress to remove a President for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Zero chance.
Agreed. And the only people opposed to it are opposed for short sighted reasons.
Every one of these ideas should be implemented and upheld, no matter who makes up SCOTUS and no matter who the President is.
Zero chance.
Agreed. And the only people opposed to it are opposed for short sighted reasons.
Every one of these ideas should be implemented and upheld, no matter who makes up SCOTUS and no matter who the President is.
Agreed. Zero chance.
This is all about putting the Supreme Court, it’s decisions, its ethics problems, and Presidential immunity into the conversation about who should be President (and possibly to have this introduced as a debate question).
Imagine the debate moment when the former prosecutor say, “There are no kings. Nobody, including the President, is above the law. The Founding Fathers and crafters of the Constitution were clear on that,” and then the felon says, “You have to have immunity… blah, blah, blah…”
Yes that is a zero given the need for a constitutional amendment for at least immunity. If the President doesn’t have at least some form of immunity for official acts hard to see them doing their job. Sending a bunch of people to the Capital knowing they will likely riot isn’t an official act and neither is storing scores of bankers boxes of classified documents after you are no longer President though. I guess the difficult thing is what sort of limits to immunity. Maybe there should be something like the ability of Congress to remove a President for high crimes and misdemeanors.
I agree with you on this, and I wish in their last ruling the SC had issued something more clear regarding what constitutes official acts vs non-official acts. I didn’t expect that to happen and I’m sure there’s a whole bunch of reasons they didn’t do that, but it would have made the immunity question a bit easier to sort out.
Term limits would need to a constitutional amendment. The ethics rules is probably just a simple law. Not sure what the Presidential immunity would take.
I think all 3 would require a constitutional amendment. If Congress passed an ethics rule with an enforcement provision, SCOTUS would say it is not bound by that rule, due to separation of powers. In the view of SCOTUS, only a constitutional amendment could create an enforceable ethics rule. I’m not saying they’re right, but I think that’s their view.
Term limits would need to a constitutional amendment. The ethics rules is probably just a simple law. Not sure what the Presidential immunity would take.
I think all 3 would require a constitutional amendment. If Congress passed an ethics rule with an enforcement provision, SCOTUS would say it is not bound by that rule, due to separation of powers. In the view of SCOTUS, only a constitutional amendment could create an enforceable ethics rule. I’m not saying they’re right, but I think that’s their view.
Foxes guarding the hen house.
Biden spoke and proposed:
Establish 18-year term limits for all justices
Create a code of ethics that includes requirements to disclose gifts and refrain from public political actions
Pass a new constitutional amendment that would virtually reverse the
supreme court decision in July granting former presidents broad immunity from prosecution for actions taken while in office
How likely is it that Harris would be able to deliver these?
How likely … not at all likely.
And though this is a good start, in my fever dreams it goes farther:
Expand the court to 26 justices (2 for each circuit, drawn from the circuit they represent). Random assignment of justices to cases.
Zero chance.
But you can tell from the left wing loons in favor of in this thread exactly what segment of the pop it appeals to q
.
If Congress passed an ethics rule with an enforcement provision, SCOTUS would say it is not bound by that rule, due to separation of powers.
I’m not sure how this argument would take shape. Congress has the power to impeach justices, and the President. SCOTUS has the power to rule on constitutionality of Executive and Legislative actions.
The whole point of the three branch system we have is that the branches can hold each other accountable.
Since it would be an official act which has immunity, maybe Biden can tell them that unless they officially adopt the code themselves - he will start locking up the justices that have committed crimes, excuse me - have taken generous gifts from their friends who have cases before the court.
Put Alito and Thomas in prison, then investigate the others and imprison any more that have done so - and they might decide that it would be a great idea.
The whole point of the three branch system we have is that the branches can hold each other accountable.
“Can” being the operative word.
Just like Congress “can” hold POTUS and Justices accountable via impeachment.
The whole point of the three branch system we have is that the branches can hold each other accountable.
“Can” being the operative word.
Just like Congress “can” hold POTUS and Justices accountable via impeachment.
Well sure, the willingness to do so is a separate question.