President also says presidential immunity for crimes should be removed and ethics rules for justices should be stricter

President also says presidential immunity for crimes should be removed and ethics rules for justices should be stricter

Joe Biden has called for a series of reforms to the US Supreme Court, including the introduction of term limits for justices and a constitutional amendment to remove immunity for crimes committed by a president while in office.

In an op-ed published on Monday morning, the president said justices should be limited to a maximum of 18 years’ service on the court rather than the current lifetime appointment, and also said ethics rules should be strengthened to regulate justices’ behavior.

The call for reform comes after the supreme court ruled in early July that former presidents have some degree of immunity from prosecution, a decision that served as a major victory for Donald Trump amid his legal travails.

“This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States,” Biden wrote.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    55·
    4 months ago

    The trick with an amendment is even if you get the House and Senate, you still face ratification from the states.

    So 38 out of 50 state legislatures need to ratify the amendment.

    To put that in perspective… in 2020, Biden and Trump split the states evenly. 25/25, Biden also took D.C.

    To get to 38, you’d need ALL 25 Biden states + 13 Trump states.

    Even getting all 25 Biden states isn’t guaranteed because of those, 6 have Republican controlled state houses.

    So now you’re looking at needing as many as 19 Trump states?

    • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
      62·
      4 months ago

      Exactly. The path to an amendment is super difficult, and Conservative states have no incentive to do so while they have so thoroughly captured the Supreme Court. That’s why you pack the Court first. Appoint 4 liberal justices in their early 40s to lifetime appointments, and you will see much more of a push from those Conservative states for reforms.

      • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
        14·
        4 months ago

        The democrats have no intention of getting this to pass. They just want to use it to get out the vote. The constitutional ammendment process was created to expect both parties to work together, that just isn’t the way things are anymore. So passing a constitutional ammendment is pretty much impossible.

        • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
          18·
          4 months ago

          Right. The only way to get Republicans to consider an amendment is to make the status quo untenable to them, so they prefer change.

          That’s why you pack the court with 4 40-yr-old Liberals who can use the current rules to push the Court leftward for 30+ years . That will get them to change the rules quickly.

          • AlpacaChariot@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            4 months ago

            I’m not from the US so sorry if this is a dumb question, but why would this push the court leftwards for 30+ years? Wouldn’t the republicans just pack the court at the next opportunity to swing it back in their favour?

            • titaniumarmor@lemmy.world
              3·
              4 months ago

              Appointing a justice can be very difficult to do if your party doesn’t control the Senate. If Democrats control the Senate or the presidency, then Republicans won’t be able to stack the court.

            • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              4 months ago

              Packing the court requires an act of Congress, which the President would then need to sign. So it’s not practical to do in a partisan fashion unless one party has the Presidency and both Houses of Congress. If Democrats get that in the next Congress, and expand the Court, then Republicans need to win them all back at the same time to mess with it.

              And without an amendment, the only practical way to mess with the court is to increase it.

          • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
            2·
            4 months ago

            Yeah, but then the dems won’t want the change since they control the court at that point. Both sides are in this for themselves, that is the nature of a system based on popularity.

        • Wilzax@lemmy.world
          4·
          4 months ago

          Unless it’s to patch a massive oversight in the Constitution like the 25th amendment.

          Or to prevent Congress from raising their own salaries with immediate effect, like with the 27th amendment.

          I think demonstrating how this is a massive oversight first will get MANY states on board with fixing the supreme court.

          • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
            1·
            4 months ago

            The last ammendment was in 92. The political landscape has changed since then. Both sides run mainly on opposing the other, which means bipartisan anything is very unlikely. They couldn’t even pass an immigration reform bill because the conservatives didn’t want to give Biden a win. This would be even harder.