this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
514 points (99.4% liked)

politics

19125 readers
4122 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

US president also to seek constitutional amendment to limit immunity for presidents and various officeholders

Joe Biden will announce plans to reform the US supreme court on Monday, Politico reported, citing two people familiar with the matter, adding that the US president was likely to back term limits for justices and an enforceable code of ethics.

Biden said earlier this week during an Oval Office address that he would call for reform of the court.

He is also expected to seek a constitutional amendment to limit immunity for presidents and some other officeholders, Politico reported, in the aftermath of a July supreme court ruling that presidents have broad immunity from prosecution.

Biden will make the announcement in Texas on Monday and the specific proposals could change, the report added.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 84 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Seems to me he’s using his last months in office to highlight issues that will damage the republican traitor filth as his VP campaigns to save the Republic.

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

Meanwhile Trump's VP is busy convincing people that it's ok for him to fuck couches or jack off to dolphin porn because he has a kid

Edit: clarifying

I think I know what you meant to say, but I’m pretty sure the downvotes are due to how confusingly and ambiguously you worded your comment

[–] mjhelto@lemm.ee 7 points 3 months ago

You might need to reread the comment you replied to.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 months ago

But... it's got dat cushion for a pushin'

[–] kspatlas@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago

Bro took the dolphin copypasta literally

[–] d00phy@lemmy.world 68 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Need a new amendment enforcing federal retirement age on elected and appointed people. If you hit it during your term, you can’t run again. If you position is appointed, you have a year to step down.

Also need a federal law correcting the recent bribery ruling, and applying it to ALL federal employees, political and non-political. Call it the Thomas Act.

[–] mjhelto@lemm.ee 39 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Wouldn't that be funny? Biden, in his last months in office, sets term limits on Congress that would have also booted him! That would be the most epic walking away while something explodes behind you kind of moment.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It would be great but the President has no such power. Congress, a group of geriatric kleptocrats, aren't going to legislate against themselves continuing to steal millions with insider trading.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

Congress, a group of geriatric kleptocrats

Well, they aren't as geriatric and kleptocratic as United Russia.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Age discrimination. Term limits or length of service would be more fair.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] stoly@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

I can agree with that.

[–] Sarmyth@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Age discrimination is codified. Minimum president age is 35, senator is 30, and congressperson is 25. No reason for it but age discrimination. If we can't put a ceiling they need to remove the floor.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Sure but you need an amendment. It will be very hard to do.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah dude, electing some 30 yo who can just sit and wreck havoc for 60 years, where's the logic behind that?

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I’ll be honest: I don’t know what you’re saying here. Can’t tell if you’re agreeing or disagreeing with me.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Term limits are more fair, basically. So I agree with you. Hence the "yeah" 😋

[–] Liz@midwest.social 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's my understanding that term limits actually end up making for a worse government, because then you end to with a higher fraction of people who are new at their job. Like any other high-skill job, it can take a year or more before you start to get good at what you're supposed to be doing. Too many freshman means there's less continuity and stability in the government.

But this is all just a vague understanding, I haven't read up on it intentionally.

[–] untorquer@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Well without them you end up with highly skilled populous fascists instead of mediocre ones. So what we have too much of already. I'd rather have new ideas with an underskilled attempt to accomplish them than the status quo expertly shifting the overton window to the right. Some instability can be good when the alternative is a set of dynasties focused on their own benefit at the express detriment of others.

[–] blackstampede@sh.itjust.works 18 points 3 months ago

I have near-zero hope this happens, but I hope it does. At least someone is worried about presidents with immunity- even leftist commentators seem to be just shrugging it off.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Presidential immunity is already unconstitutional. This Court would just ignore the new amendment like they do the current constitution.

[–] shasta@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

At that point, the president with his immunity can swoop in and have their asses thrown in Guantanamo

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

But one of the first things Congress did in 1789, the year the new government got going, was to set up a federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court—with six Justices. source

So get rid of 3 of them. Thomas. Alito. Roberts.