President also says presidential immunity for crimes should be removed and ethics rules for justices should be stricter
18 fucking years? That’s not good
It’s still long, but it’s an improvement that would remove Thomas and Alito at least.
In theory (and principle), the President being able to appoint a Supreme Court Justice is supposed to be a part of the US Government’s system of checks and balances. In order for the Executive Branch to effectively have a check on the court system, the theory requires the President’s appointees serve a decent amount of time longer than any President could serve. It also plays into the idea that a Supreme Court Justice serves as part of a President’s legacy, and allows that President’s voice to be felt beyond the end of their term.
The problem with this theory is bad actors can get absurdly lucky and appoint three Justices (ie Donald Trump) in a single term to disastrous effect.
In addition to a more robust code of ethics, what Biden is proposing is to (1) create term limits long enough that will still allow the Executive Branch to still have check the judicial system, have a sustained legacy through the court system, but also end lifetime appointments and (2) set up a system where a new justice would be appointed to the supreme court by the serving President every two years (Preventing a situation where Trump gets to appoint three in one term).
This, at least, is the theory Biden and the democrats are working with. It is something everyone should be able to rally behind… but as we all know republicans are hellbent on opposing democrats and known for their hypocrisy.
If he actually gets this passed and signed into law I will vote Democrat in the fall.
“I am hinging my vote for a Democrat on a chain of events that democrats have no control over”
Passing this requires republican votes in congress.
This Congress.
Vote Democrat, and it’ll be the very next Congress.
This is what they say every four years.
Hence why I made my comment. I want to see Democrats do something meaningful now.
The democrats do not have the power to pass this amendment without republican support. It has been nearly half a century since they’ve had the required majorities (two-thirds in both chambers), and since then they’ve been fighting tooth-and-nail against Republicans like Reagan, Bush Sr., W Bush, and Trump (who is far worse than the first three).
Even under Clinton and Obama, they did not have the majorities to unilaterally amend the constitution; the republicans had enough to stop them.
In order to get this amendment passed, we all need to put a little faith into the democrats because they are the only ones who can feasibly do it.
I fully agree. But it’s a stupid thing to base your vote this November upon, like the top comment says.
No.
What’s stupid is making excuses for 40 years straight and then asserting to me, when all evidence points to the contrary, that voting Democrat accomplishes anything.
Show an example of where voting another way accomplishes anything good. Not holding my breath.
Votes for obstructionists. Gets mad when they obstruct.
Nope.
I’m a Green Party voter. Clearly, I’m mad that our president and the other Democrats do nothing except talk.
I totally understand the frustration with the two party system in the United States; it’s stupid, slow, and cumbersome to work with. As a result, I understand it’s tempting to just vote for a third party because of how poorly the two parties represent their constituents.
If the United States system of government were a parliamentary democracy or even just assigned representatives more proportionally, I think voting for a third party might be a feasible option to enact real change. The Liberal Democrats in the UK are an example of a third party successfully challenging Labour and the Tories.
But unfortunately, the United States has a totally different system; we have a Presidential executive branch with a bicameral legislature that runs on a first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all system (with very few exceptions). All it takes is 50.01% of the vote for one party to take 100% of their district or state or have 100% their way. This is further compounded by the issue of the Senate and the Electoral College giving low-population, rural states outsized influence over high-population states. Under this system, a vote for a third party candidate is basically a vote that empowers the more evil candidate and will result in a negative outcome.
Basically, what I am getting at is the US System is stupid. It needs reform. We should be able to vote for a third party candidate and expect a positive outcome. But right now, there is only one party that actually has reform on their platform and could feasibly do it, and that’s the democrats. They’ve tested ranked-choice voting, invested in our crumbling infrastructure, passed legislation to address climate change, pushed for single-payer healthcare for years, advocated for police reform, and even campaign finance reform & repeal the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling. Now, they’re also advocating to reform the Supreme Court and make it so the POTUS is not above the law. But the only way this can happen is if the Democrats get 50.01% of the vote in enough districts to make Republican obstructionism a non-viable tactic.
The Republicans are the ones that must be stopped in November and only the Democrats have the power and resources to feasibly accomplish this within the constraints of our current system.
Edit: grammar, clarity
I love that it’s just a proposal and you’re already making excuses.
But sure, Democrats should just… make excuses, because it’s hard to do the actual work.
Awesome stance you got there.
Democrats can do everything 100% perfectly and it’ll still go nowhere because they only have 50 seats in the senate and a minority in the house.
Thinking that they have some magical ability to pass legislation their opposition doesn’t want under those conditions is just s sign that you don’t know much about civics.
because they only have 50 seats in the senate and a minority in the house.
That’s exactly what I said.
They should do nothing. Because it’s hard.
I’m agreeing with you.
You clearly have no intention of a good faith discussion, go away. No one needs your negativity.
What did I say that’s incorrect here? I’m not misrepresenting your position in any way.
You’re content to give Democrats credit for their words. I am not. I need to see more than broken promises. I need to see actual work toward making these changes a reality, not another pie-in-the-sky speech before they take off for another two months of vacation.
Further, it is possible to make things happen if they actually use the power they have. Biden, as president, has the power to keep Congress in session until they do what he wants. The House has the ability to hold up military funding until they get what they want. The Senate can make people actually have to stand and filibuster instead of caving at the threat of it.
Democrats do none of these things. They take no for an answer and then pretend they did their job by simply giving a speech.
Ruling is hard, but that it’s hard is no excuse for doing nothing.
What did I say that’s incorrect here?
If he actually gets this passed and signed into law I will vote Democrat in the fall.
Yeah I’m not willing to believe you will vote for a Democrat even if they somehow manage to pull off what amounts to a miracle
You’re content to give Democrats credit for their words. I am not.
Unless they promised to do something bad. You’d seize that opportunity instantly, the one trick pony you are.
Biden called for a “no one is above the law” amendment to the constitution, which would make clear that no president is entitled to immunity from prosecution by virtue of having served in the White House. Biden also said justices’ terms should be limited to 18 years, under a system where a new justice would be appointed to the supreme court by the serving president every two years.
Given that Republicans have taken it upon themselves to take the opposite stance on issues as Democrats, this could force them into outright supporting the president being above the law and support having no ethics code (ie bribery) or term limits for Supreme Court Justices.
Not that republicans are above hypocrisy when it comes to their team, but it could at least give us some extra sound bites to work with to boost democrats.
The term limits Biden proposed could arguably be declared arbitrary (only Thomas and Alito have served longer), but the rest of this proposal seems like it should be pretty popular.
If you haven’t noticed, Republicans already think that way.They openly support corruption when it’s “their side” in charge.
Also, I think it needs to be understood what Biden is doing with this proposal. He’s been in government for half a century and has a deep understanding of how it all works. What he is doing here is laying down what the Democratic Party stands for and their vision for what the United States should look like. The republicans will block this and do everything to make sure it goes nowhere.
This is no ordinary piece of legislation that Biden is proposing. The only chance it will happen is if the democrats get the required majorities and that will only happen if people vote. The only way to amend the supreme court is via a Constitutional Amendment which requires more than just a 50%+ vote in Congress.
Specifically, the Constitution can only be amended in the two ways:
- Congressional Proposal: An amendment can be proposed by a 2/3 majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
- Constitutional Convention: 2/3 of state legislatures can call for a national convention to propose amendments. I’m not sure if this method has ever even been attempted.
- Furthermore, once proposed, the amendment must be ratified by 3/4 (or 38 out of 50) of the state legislatures. Alternatively, Congress can require the amendment be ratified by conventions in 3/4 of states.
By now, I am sure people will have identified several pitfalls with these methods; the 2/3rds majority is going to be quite the problem to overcome, especially when (1) the republicans are hellbent on opposing democrats, (2) this amendment is a direct threat to the power republicans have spent decades cultivating, (3) Trump sees the Presidency as a shield from his crimes and this amendment is a direct threat to both his desired position of immunity and his ambitions as President.
Congress hasn’t been 2/3rds any one party for generations, and there are simply too many deep-red, republican states to get a 2/3rds majority via the states.
The only way this amendment can be passed and the Supreme Court reformed is if the democrats gain the required majorities. The republicans have no desire to limit the power of the presidency or the supreme court because both (in their current state) are essential is cementing their power when their policies and positions are so unpopular.
I didn’t think the term limits are arbitrary. It also includes a system that spaces out appointments so that new judges are selected every two years so that the cycle of new judges is more consistent. It avoids a situation like Trump’s presidency where he got to appoint more than his share of judges.
I don’t think they are necessarily either - I’m just anticipating what the republicans are going to say about them.
