this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
794 points (99.3% liked)

News

23427 readers
3589 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Biden delivered remarks from the Oval Office outlining his decision not to seek reelection, his first on-camera remarks since making that announcement on Sunday. In addition to explaining why he is ending his candidacy, he listed off his priorities for his remaining time as president.

“And I’m going to call for Supreme Court reform, because this is critical to our democracy,” Biden said.

Multiple outlets have reported that Biden is considering proposals to establish term limits for Supreme Court justices and an enforceable ethics code for those on the high court.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Hegar@fedia.io 239 points 4 months ago (8 children)

If I understand the supreme court correctly, Biden could just shoot Roberts, Alito and Thomas and call it court reform, right? That makes it an official act?

[–] ignirtoq@fedia.io 152 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Ironically if he did that and appointed new liberal justices, there's a good chance the new Court would overturn this Court's decision, and he could be convicted of murder and probably violating several other federal laws for that act.

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 127 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I think there is something in the constitution about not being able to charge someone criminally for something retroactively, that wasn't a crime at the time it was committed.

Found it! Article 1, section 9, clause 3.

[–] ignirtoq@fedia.io 88 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Ex post facto is for if a new law is passed making something a crime, and the act was committed before its passage. This is all about interpretation of already passed law. It's basically the justices saying that this was against the law the whole time. Ex post facto doesn't apply here.

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 4 months ago

Kamala could pardon him. I don’t think very many of their voters would mind.

[–] Sabata11792@ani.social 5 points 4 months ago

The president is currently above the law, so the constitution is as good as toilet paper.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 26 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No, because he's not a Republican.

[–] nul9o9@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

However, the justices that make that distinction relevant would no longer be able to do so?

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 9 points 4 months ago

I think the remainder would be against it regardless.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So, to answer seriously: if it's an explicit presidential power he gets total personal immunity, although the office can still be restricted. If it's an official act, he's presumed to have personal immunity unless the prosecutor can argue that there's no way that not having immunity could get in the way of doing the job of president, and they're not allowed to use motivation to make the case.

The president isn't given the explicit power to reform the courts.
He's given explicit power to command the armed forces, but the rules of the armed forces are decided by Congress.

So it's a question arguing how "the president can't kill members of the judiciary" doesn't hinder the power of the executive branch without referencing why the president is killing them.

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 16 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Biden is allowed to kill Supreme Court justices because he might need to Navy SEAL people for security reasons. Allowing litigation on Biden's SEAL powers would irreparably restrict Biden's agency as commander in chief and would literally cause a 9/11

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 12 points 4 months ago

I'm horrified to agree that that's actually a valid argument.

Judicial review of the established presidential power to direct the military to kill, ahem, "designate as a clear and immediate threat", specific individuals in an emergency to protect the country would legitimately undermine the presidents power to defend the integrity of the nation.

Goddamn was that a stupid fucking ruling.

[–] scaramobo@lemmynsfw.com -3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Would it literally? Like hijacked foreign planes flying into buildings? Like invading countries for oil? Literally?

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 3 points 4 months ago

The argument that the Supreme Court made pretty boils down to "if you let the president go to trial for Navy SEALing a Supreme Court Justice, then the chilling effect of potential litigation would make the president too scared to kill Osama Bin Laden. Therefore the president has legal immunity when Navy SEALing Supreme Court justices".

So yes, the Supreme Court actually believes that litigating a president could literally cause another 9/11.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Who’s gonna vote to say it wasn’t official afterwards?

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)
[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 3 points 4 months ago

Oh no, here I go, acting officially again.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago
[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

No need to do it himself. Order assassins to do it as an official act, then immediately pardon them.

[–] Nurgus@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

I think it's traditional to say "Seal Team 6" rather than "assassins" at this point.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Well, he would need a volunteer that way, then he writes them a pardon, because the order is still illegal and they can refuse it, it just doesn't matter to him.

Much easier to just buy a shotgun, call it Official Acts, and go to town.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago

That's correct

[–] xenoclast@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

That is only for very specific people. That part is a secret and they don't tell you who. But I'm certain Biden isn't on that list.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I would chance it.