House Democrat is proposing a constitutional amendment to reverse Supreme Court's immunity decision - eviltoast

A leading House Democrat is preparing a constitutional amendment in response to the Supreme Court’s landmark immunity ruling, seeking to reverse the decision “and ensure that no president is above the law.”

Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York, the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, sent a letter to colleagues informing them of his intent to file the resolution, which would kickstart what’s traditionally a cumbersome amendment process.

“This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do — prioritize our democracy,” Morelle said in a statement to AP.

It’s the most significant legislative response yet to the decision this week from the court’s conservative majority, which stunned Washington and drew a sharp dissent from the court’s liberal justices warning of the perils to democracy, particularly as Trump seeks a return to the White House. Still, the effort stands almost no chance of succeeding in this Congress.

  • SlippiHUD@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    I agree with this political stunt to point out the Trump Courts illegitimacy.

    The words of the constitution currently have no value to the Trump Court. They just invented Total Criminal Immunity for official acts, and anything said to a government employee isn’t admissible in court. In a country founded on the idea no one is above the law.

    This court is worse than the Dredd Scott court, they’ll just rule up is down and any amendment meant to undermine their decision actually affirms it.

    For those arguing that Biden couldn’t do the funniest thing ever, I disagree. It truely doesn’t matter if they rule it an unofficial act. The purpose of this ruling is to get Trump out of his 34 felonies he’s already been convicted of because they used a lot of testimony from administration employees. So as long as that part of the ruling stands, Biden can still get away with anything. How do you convict with no witnesses.

    • Natanael@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      The constitution even says the president isn’t immune and the federalist papers spells it out EXTREMELY clearly for any “originalist” to read.

      Honestly the courts should call out SCOTUS on lying and making an invalid ruling that the constitution does not give them the authority to make, then just acting like it didn’t happen.

      • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I think it’s supposed to be congress’s responsibility to do that, but I guess there’s enough conservatives there to prevent that.

        Edit: you would need at least 1/3 of senate republicans to agree to impeach a justice

        • Natanael@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          During presidency at most, but all the history says presidents were supposed to be possible to prosecute for crimes after their term and SCOTUS ignored that despite the majority claiming to be originalists