Do you support amendment?

[dbjork6317]

The President has proposed an amendment to the constitution to limit/eliminate Presidential immunity. There’s no official language yet, but per the White House it would “state that the Constitution does not confer any immunity from federal criminal indictment, trial, conviction, or sentencing by virtue of previously serving as President.”

Personally, I’d support this (pending the official language) and struggle to understand why Americans wouldn’t want the President to be able to be held legally accountable. So, do you support it? And if not, why not? And let’s see if we can make our arguments here without specifically referencing Biden/Trump/Harris/2024 election. This is bigger than that and would obviously have an impact on the rule of law long after 2024.

Biden also proposed term limits for Supreme Court justices, and I’ve long been on record for supporting term limits across the board, for judges and congress.

 

[scotchtiger]

I think if it is for actions outside of fulfilling his presidential duties, then yes. You should not be immune for actions completely unrelated to the presidency when you are no longer president.

 

[okclem]

The president should be no more immune to the law than anyone else.

 

[dbjork6317]

I think if it is for actions outside of fulfilling his presidential duties, then yes. You should not be immune for actions completely unrelated to the presidency when you are no longer president.

This is pretty in line with the Supreme Court ruling, that the President is immune from prosecution for “official acts” but doesn’t really define what an official act is or isn’t, leaving an awful lot of room for interpretation with the court giving itself all of the power to do the interpreting on a case by case basis.

I can see such an argument being needed for issues dealing with national security, and surely we wouldn’t want the President prosecuted if, for example, a civilian was accidentally killed in an otherwise necessary military action the President ordered. Beyond those scenarios, I struggle to come up with scenarios where the President would have a need/reason for immunity, I don’t know what other “official acts” would require the President to, potentially, act outside of the law.

 

[fatpiggy]

This is pretty in line with the Supreme Court ruling, that the President is immune from prosecution for “official acts” but doesn’t really define what an official act is or isn’t, leaving an awful lot of room for interpretation with the court giving itself all of the power to do the interpreting on a case by case basis.

I can see such an argument being needed for issues dealing with national security, and surely we wouldn’t want the President prosecuted if, for example, a civilian was accidentally killed in an otherwise necessary military action the President ordered. Beyond those scenarios, I struggle to come up with scenarios where the President would have a need/reason for immunity, I don’t know what other “official acts” would require the President to, potentially, act outside of the law.

The scotus got it right, no need to adjust.

 

[fatpiggy]

The president should be no more immune to the law than anyone else.

That is a ridiculous statement. Think about it for .02 seconds

 

[scotchtiger]

This is pretty in line with the Supreme Court ruling, that the President is immune from prosecution for “official acts” but doesn’t really define what an official act is or isn’t, leaving an awful lot of room for interpretation with the court giving itself all of the power to do the interpreting on a case by case basis.

I can see such an argument being needed for issues dealing with national security, and surely we wouldn’t want the President prosecuted if, for example, a civilian was accidentally killed in an otherwise necessary military action the President ordered. Beyond those scenarios, I struggle to come up with scenarios where the President would have a need/reason for immunity, I don’t know what other “official acts” would require the President to, potentially, act outside of the law.

I'm not privy to the non-public ongoings of US presidents, so I'm not really sure. But I imagine in the course of 4 years they are ordering military strikes, having bad guys assassinated, authorizing bribes, etc etc. I'm sure there are some trade-related, business-related, anti-trust type issues that could come up as well. It's presumed these things are done in the nations best interest of course, but my confidence in the elected federal government has never been lower.

I understand why the president needs to be immune from certain official acts, but as mentioned, I don't know why that would extend to civilian life. Perhaps if he's acting for the US in the official capacity as a former president (ie brokering a peace deal)? Not sure.

 

[DrTigerGoob]

That is a ridiculous statement. Think about it for .02 seconds

Makes sense to me in the 2 seconds I read it.

 

[DrTigerGoob]

The scotus got it right, no need to adjust.

No they didn't.

Based on the evidence presented at trial in NY, Trump's companies violated the law. He wasn't president when he did these things. Therefore, he shouldn't be able to claim immunity from the judgment because he became president.

 

[kidmike41]

No they didn't.

Based on the evidence presented at trial in NY, Trump's companies violated the law. He wasn't president when he did these things. Therefore, he shouldn't be able to claim immunity from the judgment because he became president.

The Supreme Court didn't say that he had immunity on those items. Those were not official acts. If a lower court wants to drop charges that is a separate matter.

 

[PawsFan_]

So a lame duck president wants to propose a Constitutional Amendment that will have to pass Congress and be ratified by 75% of the states: all before his term ends.

The man is senile.

 

[okclem]

That is a ridiculous statement. Think about it for .02 seconds

I don't have to. I've already thought about it longer than that.

 

[DrTigerGoob]

The Supreme Court didn't say that he had immunity on those items. Those were not official acts. If a lower court wants to drop charges that is a separate matter.

That hasn't stopped Trump for asking that this case be thrown out because of the SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity though. It gives him wiggle room to get out of the conviction. Up to the judge whether this SCOTUS ruling applies.

 

[moradatiger70]

No they didn't.

Based on the evidence presented at trial in NY, Trump's companies violated the law. He wasn't president when he did these things. Therefore, he shouldn't be able to claim immunity from the judgment because he became president.

You better go convict 80% of Real Estate developers then. I worked for some in the past, and what is considered illegal, may be by the letter of the law and I am not going to argue that, but it's done on the daily, and NO one on the left can get past that.
All they see is convict, convict!

Sorry @dbjork6317. I realized I did not answer. I actually agree (pending the official language). But what I said above still applies.
Also, not in agreement with "term limits", but maybe "ending term". Meaning, your term ends after so many years and then you have to either be reappointed for another term or replaced.

 

[fatpiggy]

No they didn't.

Based on the evidence presented at trial in NY, Trump's companies violated the law. He wasn't president when he did these things. Therefore, he shouldn't be able to claim immunity from the judgment because he became president.

You immediately go to Trump instead of thinking about the implications for ALL presidents. Think a little bit farther than your hatred. Your TDS is showing.

 

[dbjork6317]

So a lame duck president wants to propose a Constitutional Amendment that will have to pass Congress and be ratified by 75% of the states: all before his term ends.

The man is senile.

Why would all of that have to happen before his term ends?

 

[fatpiggy]

Yeah, 75% of the states will definitely ratify that. Anyone looked at an electoral map lately?

 

[kidmike41]

That hasn't stopped Trump for asking that this case be thrown out because of the SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity though. It gives him wiggle room to get out of the conviction. Up to the judge whether this SCOTUS ruling applies.

Right, so Trump can ask all he wants. No need for a constitutional amendment.

 

[CUT93]

This is pretty in line with the Supreme Court ruling, that the President is immune from prosecution for “official acts” but doesn’t really define what an official act is or isn’t, leaving an awful lot of room for interpretation with the court giving itself all of the power to do the interpreting on a case by case basis.

I can see such an argument being needed for issues dealing with national security, and surely we wouldn’t want the President prosecuted if, for example, a civilian was accidentally killed in an otherwise necessary military action the President ordered. Beyond those scenarios, I struggle to come up with scenarios where the President would have a need/reason for immunity, I don’t know what other “official acts” would require the President to, potentially, act outside of the law.

I am against it, simply for the reason there is no way you could compose an all encompassing list of exceptions. Without it, it is too easy to use for political purposes like it is being used now.
Are federal EPA guidelines broken in ordered official acts grounds for prosecution? It's likely every potus ever has has broken the classified docs rules. We know both trump and biden did so. There are just too many ways to selectively prosecute if official acts are not covered

 

[CUT93]

The President has proposed an amendment to the constitution to limit/eliminate Presidential immunity. There’s no official language yet, but per the White House it would “state that the Constitution does not confer any immunity from federal criminal indictment, trial, conviction, or sentencing by virtue of previously serving as President.”

Personally, I’d support this (pending the official language) and struggle to understand why Americans wouldn’t want the President to be able to be held legally accountable. So, do you support it? And if not, why not? And let’s see if we can make our arguments here without specifically referencing Biden/Trump/Harris/2024 election. This is bigger than that and would obviously have an impact on the rule of law long after 2024.

Biden also proposed term limits for Supreme Court justices, and I’ve long been on record for supporting term limits across the board, for judges and congress.

Per my post above, I am against the immunity amendment. Generally I am against term limits for scotus. However, I might would agree to it if it applied to all federally elected officials(congress/senate, etc.)

 

[dbjork6317]

I am against it, simply for the reason there is no way you could compose an all encompassing list of exceptions. Without it, it is too easy to use for political purposes like it is being used now.
Are federal EPA guidelines broken in ordered official acts grounds for prosecution? It's likely every potus ever has has broken the classified docs rules. We know both trump and biden did so. There are just too many ways to selectively prosecute if official acts are not covered

Per my post above, I am against the immunity amendment. Generally I am against term limits for scotus. However, I might would agree to it if it applied to all federally elected officials(congress/senate, etc.)

Fair points. I agree term limits should apply across the board to all elected/appointed officials. I would also be open to @moradatiger70 ‘s suggestion that judges have to be reviewed/re-appointed after a term period. I do think we have to wonder about what unintended consequences might come from term limits. Would a Senator who can’t run for re-election become even more corrupt and just start selling their votes to the highest bidder (as if they don’t already)?

 

[CUT93]

Fair points. I agree term limits should apply across the board to all elected/appointed officials. I would also be open to @moradatiger70 ‘s suggestion that judges have to be reviewed/re-appointed after a term period. I do think we have to wonder about what unintended consequences might come from term limits. Would a Senator who can’t run for re-election become even more corrupt and just start selling their votes to the highest bidder (as if they don’t already)?

The argument about term limits to senators would apply to scotus as well, no? Not sure what the difference would be.

 

[dbjork6317]

The argument about term limits to senators would apply to scotus as well, no? Not sure what the difference would be.

I think you’re seeing that happen now on the Supreme Court with the lifetime appointments. There’s really no measures in place to hold justices accountable, which is why the President is also pushing for a more clear, enforceable ethics code for justices. A justice faces no re-election, no re-appointment, etc. In the congress there are at least ethics rules in place, although they’re widely underenforced.

I suppose the other benefit of term limits is even if someone does become corrupt, there is literally a legal stopping point to their ability to be so. They wouldn’t be able to remain in Congress or on the court for decades and decades on end.

 

[okclem]

Fair points. I agree term limits should apply across the board to all elected/appointed officials. I would also be open to @moradatiger70 ‘s suggestion that judges have to be reviewed/re-appointed after a term period. I do think we have to wonder about what unintended consequences might come from term limits. Would a Senator who can’t run for re-election become even more corrupt and just start selling their votes to the highest bidder (as if they don’t already)?

Surely we could follow some best practices that other countries with these kinds of term limits find successful.

 

[moradatiger70]

It's just odd that we've had no term limits for SCOTUS for over 200 years and we are just now (in the midst of a "I don't like this outcome so let's change it" culture) wanting the revise term limits.
Not that I don;t think its a good idea, just odd IMO

 

[okclem]

It's just odd that we've had no term limits for SCOTUS for over 200 years and we are just now (in the midst of a "I don't like this outcome so let's change it" culture) wanting the revise term limits.
Not that I don;t think its a good idea, just odd IMO

We haven't had Christian extremists on the SCOTUS bought and paid for by Nazi sympathizers before. Things change.

 

[moradatiger70]

We haven't had Christian extremists on the SCOTUS bought and paid for by Nazi sympathizers before. Things change.

Oh yea.

 

[dbjork6317]

It's just odd that we've had no term limits for SCOTUS for over 200 years and we are just now (in the midst of a "I don't like this outcome so let's change it" culture) wanting the revise term limits.
Not that I don;t think its a good idea, just odd IMO

I don’t think this is all that different from how law has evolved throughout the country’s history. Lots of things have changed over the last 2 centuries as it became clear that there were better ways to do things. We didn’t have term limits on Presidents until one President decided he would just be President forever, until he died. I think when you look at lack of term limits on SCOTUS, I tend to doubt that it was originally envisioned that justices would remain on the court for 30+ years.

American history is filled with moments like these, kind of cross cutting moments that create a big change in law and how we operate the government. And honestly 200 years is a blink of an eye, relatively speaking. England had monarchy rule for almost 1,000 years. Things have to change and should change.

 

[moradatiger70]

I don’t think this is all that different from how law has evolved throughout the country’s history. Lots of things have changed over the last 2 centuries as it became clear that there were better ways to do things. We didn’t have term limits on Presidents until one President decided he would just be President forever, until he died. I think when you look at lack of term limits on SCOTUS, I tend to doubt that it was originally envisioned that justices would remain on the court for 30+ years.

American history is filled with moments like these, kind of cross cutting moments that create a big change in law and how we operate the government. And honestly 200 years is a blink of an eye, relatively speaking. England had monarchy rule for almost 1,000 years. Things have to change and should change.

We are definitely young, no doubt. As I said, I'm good with the change. Just happens to come at a time when one side hasn't liked outcomes. I think acting like we have justices on the court now that are way out of line is ridiculous, but some will tell you they are Christian extremists paid for by Nazi sympathizers. C'mon man! (looking at you @okclem)
Too bad we didn't make these changes years back.

 

[okclem]

We are definitely young, no doubt. As I said, I'm good with the change. Just happens to come at a time when one side hasn't liked outcomes. I think acting like we have justices on the court now that are way out of line is ridiculous, but some will tell you they are Christian extremists paid for by Nazi sympathizers. C'mon man! (looking at you @okclem)
Too bad we didn't make these changes years back.

They are. Alito flies the appeal to heaven flag, and the Thomas's helped pay for the Capitol riot. Those are facts. Also fact that they're on Harlan Crowe's payroll.

 

[dbjork6317]

We are definitely young, no doubt. As I said, I'm good with the change. Just happens to come at a time when one side hasn't liked outcomes. I think acting like we have justices on the court now that are way out of line is ridiculous, but some will tell you they are Christian extremists paid for by Nazi sympathizers. C'mon man! (looking at you @okclem)
Too bad we didn't make these changes years back.

I think there are some serious questions to be asked about a justice who flies an upside down American flag outside of his home and another justice who has had repeated lapses in adhering to the already extremely lax SCOTUS ethics rules.

 

[BlueRidgedf]

Liberals don't like the Supreme Court anymore because it's not a rubber stamp for them. If the nazis on the left don't get their way, they try to go around the constitution.

 

[okclem]

Liberals don't like the Supreme Court anymore because it's not a rubber stamp for them. If the nazis on the left don't get their way, they try to go around the constitution.

Nazis of the left 🤣🤣 So we're communists and Nazis.

 

[dbjork6317]

Liberals don't like the Supreme Court anymore because it's not a rubber stamp for them. If the nazis on the left don't get their way, they try to go around the constitution.

Isn’t adding an amendment to the constitution kind of the exact opposite of going around the constitution?