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.
That’s the insidious part. People advocating for Biden to go on a crime spree are assuming that the Supreme Court is aiming to be consistent, and apply this ruling fairly to both parties. They’ve INTENTIONALLY left it unspecified what counts as an “official” act, so that any question that comes up just goes right back to them, and they can rule however they see fit. Also, people are assuming the Court won’t just directly contradict their own rulings, the moment it’s convenient. This entire thing just shows that the Court can and will give itself final say on any questions of law or policy, I.E. anything anyone in the government does. This doesn’t make the President a king, it makes the Court the king.
I’d say it makes a criminal President into a King.
It doesn’t give the president authority to do anything he wants. It just shields him from prosecution if he commits a crime.
Biden isn’t a criminal so he has no additional authority. Trump on the other hand is a criminal and makes no apologies for it. He will commit crimes if he’s President again. And Trump’s weaselly nature around the law means he’ll be able to find every crime he can convince people to commit on his behalf. It won’t matter if it’s known he ordered the crime to happen he’s immune. His henchmen can get pardons. He no longer would need to care that the pardon would nullify fifth amendment protections on compelling testimony since he’s immune from prosecution. And if he gets elected as a convicted felon, why would he care about things like legacy (as if he did before)?
The SCOTUS doesn’t have a DOJ or an FBI to arrest and prosecute anyone with. That’s the big catch in all this arguing.
If Biden seriously wanted to be a sassy bitch, he’d have Trump extraordinarily renditioned to a prison in Iraq and tried for bombing the Iraqi airfield that hosted the Iranian ambassadors.
The SCOTUS gets to pound sand, Americans can heal a gapping foreign policy wound between the US and Iran, and Trump gets a taste of living as an illegal.
But he’s not going to do that. He’s not going to impound Trump’s assets or freeze his accounts. He’s not going to treat Trump in any way like an asset of an enemy power.
Because he’s terrified of violating the Norms that dictate presidents can, in fact, do whatever the hell they want.
Also because Biden isn’t a criminal.
This ruling only benefits criminal Presidents, which is what Trump was and may soon be again.
The US has committing war crimes on a regular basis, globally, practically since the word entered the vernacular.
Biden still hasn’t closed Gitmo - a two decade running war crime - along with the rest of our torture prisons and black sites. He’s blatantly violated international law via our looting of the Afghan Treasury, our terror bombing in Syria, Libya, Somalia, and Iraq, our mercenary kill squads sent into Mali, Yemen, Congo, Nigeria, and Haiti, and our illegal occupation from the the Philippines and Japan to Panama and Cuba.
And then there’s Israel.
Biden’s continued criminal misconduct dating back to the McKinley Administration. Its just within the scope of his office, so the SCOTUS thinks he’s beyond prosecution.
When you don’t know anything about foreign affairs, international law, what a war is, what an occupation is, then sure, everything looks like a war crime.
But there is actually definitions for these kinds of things. You might want to look into them so you won’t continue to sound like a teenager.
Mass execution of civilians is always a war crime.
Again, not familiar enough with what a war is. It’s not like a video game portrayal of war where the civilians are outlined with a different colour than the combatants. Sure it could be a little closer to that if all combatants wore uniforms, but sometimes one side in a war fights dirty and doesn’t wear uniforms and actively tries to blend in with the civilians.
In any case in every war there are civilian causalities. Unlike video games there’s no option to make the bullets only damage enemies. The reality is you have a bunch of scared teenagers firing live bullets that can kill they enemy, friendly soldiers, and civilians.
Never hear the phrase “war is hell”? You think people were just joshing you about that? Now that you see that war isn’t how it’s portrayed in movies and video games you need to call it something else so you can continue to think war is a fun thing?
Well he just needs to do exactly those that Trump did 😅
That’s a speculation, thought.