Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will introduce legislation Thursday reaffirming that presidents do not have immunity for criminal actions, an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last month.

Schumer’s No Kings Act would attempt to invalidate the decision by declaring that presidents are not immune from criminal law and clarifying that Congress, not the Supreme Court, determines to whom federal criminal law is applied.

The court’s conservative majority decided July 1 that presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken within their official duties — a decision that threw into doubt the Justice Department’s case against Republican former President Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

Schumer, of New York, said that Congress has an obligation and the constitutional authority to check the Supreme Court on its decision.

      • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        64
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Thanks, I realize now that in my rush to be humorously cynical, I was actually understating how bad things are.

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        48
        ·
        7 months ago

        Soon to be named the “No Kings, Queers, Trans, Ukraine Aid, Unmarried Women, No-Fault Divorce, JD Vance Couch-Fucking Jokes, And We Were Just Kidding About The No Kings Thing” Act.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        What, you want us to have a king? (Or federal mandatory ten commandments posted in schools, birth control to be made illegal, and an MPAA surveillance program to be required for every PC?)

        Only one yes or no, please.

    • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      You may be making a joke, I’m not sure, but, in case you’re not, this line of thinking is often used by governments to push through legislation whose content would otherwise be objectionable. It’s akin to just reading the headline of a news article without reading its content. An example could be something like “The Patriot Act”: “Who could possibly vote against patriotism at a time like this?” — look at its content. One could also look at the COVID relief bills and notice just how much content has absolutely nothing to do with COVID relief. The names of legislative bills are manufactured for the very purpose of appealing to one’s emotions and to distract from objectionable content.

      • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        My humor can be awkwardly multifaceted. I know the internet likes jokes to be obvious, but I have found this difficult.

  • ReCursing@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    160
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    I still think the correct response to that would have been Biden unilaterally ordering the arrest of the supreme court, citing the immunity they had just granted him. Then asking if maybe they would like to change their mind and not actually arresting them

    • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      110
      ·
      7 months ago

      No, not arrest. He should issue an executive order stating that all their property be seized using eminent domain. Of course he should do that while they’re in session and then immediately send Federal Marshals to go and change all the locks on all the properties and secure their contents and tow all their vehicles. He can then sell all of it at auction to pay for programs providing broadband and health care for poor people

      When all the uproar starts over that, he should then close the Supreme Court building and put it up for sale for the same purpose, then rent a space in a D.C. strip-mall for SCOTUS to use as office space and to hold hearings in. You know, treat them with the respect they deserve.

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      59
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      The problem with this ruling was that they left “official act” incredibly vague, giving the SC the power in determining legitimate acts that are immune

      People keep saying Biden should just order a drone strike on the justices or his opponent but the next court could just be like ‘nope, not allowed’ and throw him in jail

      They really need to clarify it so that the SC can’t legislate from the bench

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        7 months ago

        left “official act” incredibly vague, giving the SC the power in determining legitimate acts that are immune

        For the last few decades conservatives have been building a SCOTUS with the sole intent of centralizing as much power as possible within them as they aren’t elected and have lifetime positions. They go for the youngest heritage foundation choices so they can retain that power for as long as possible.

        Chevron Deference is another perfect example of a power grab by the corrupt SCOTUS.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        The problem with this ruling was that they left “official act” incredibly vague, giving the SC the power in determining legitimate acts that are immune

        But if they were arrested they wouldn’t be able to rule against Biden. 🤔

            • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Sure, but it increases the volatility and partisan nature of the court

              I don’t think SC reform is optional, nor do I think executive immunity is a solution. A fun one-time trick to make a point isn’t going to fix the systemic issues of the court or legislature.

              Edit: a huge symptom of the dysfunction of the federal government is the power that’s accumulating into the executive. ‘You can do whatever you want so long as the court happens to agree with you’ is just shit politics.

              • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                I’m not really sold on constitutionalism, but the least we could do is make it democratic.

                Appoint every adult in America to the Supreme Court and let the majority decide what the Constitution means. 🤷‍♀️

        • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          It would give them ammo for all the crap they’ve been saying about him from the beginning. And as much as it sucks, what the president does will affect what happens in November. Doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

      • snooggums@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        7 months ago

        It is apparently necessary to show the real world implications in practice for people to understand.

  • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    ·
    7 months ago

    Just to be clear, in England/the UK, at least, kings were established as not being above the law by the Magna Carta and when Charles I tried to dispute that they cut his head off. The powers that SCOTUS is giving to the President go well beyond the ones given to the monarchy that most Americans are familiar with.

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Certainly not going to pass (1) as long as there is a filibuster in the Senate and (2) as long as Republicans control the House.

    Of course even if it does pass someday, what does anyone think the odds are that there would be 5 votes on the current SCOTUS to uphold it?

    But I’m all for making Republicans block it.

    • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      7 months ago

      it’s to make republicans unambiguously invalidate their own “we don’t want a dictatorship” claims

      • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        And what does that accomplish?

        trump is already telling his followers to elect him and never have to vote again. project 2025 is a similar shitfest.

        This is the usual Democrat “we care about decorum”. It doesn’t impact the base of either party. And the “independent” voters aren’t actually all that independent and either already realize “Holy shit, this matters” or “Whatever. Douche and a turd sandwich”.

        • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          7 months ago

          it seems like nothing accomplishes anything anymore: impeachments, convictions, even his own constant unintentional self sabotage doesn’t sink him

          doesn’t mean anyone should stop trying

          • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            7 months ago

            There are very clear options that are outright supported by the supreme court. Just like we had opportunities in the past to reinforce Roe v Wade or to replace supreme court justices before they died of old age.

            But, instead, we do these futile efforts to sound good in the hopes that politicians can bank enough cash before the republican firing squad comes for them.

        • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          It allows Democrats to run adds showing the middle-of-the-road, undecided voters what they’re going to get if they keep letting Republicans get elected. Those are the votes that we need to strive for. You will never convert Trump’s cult followers. It’s the independent voters that can save this nation but we have to get their attention and show them that what’s happening is not normal.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      But I’m all for making Republicans block it.

      They just blocked the moonshot program to find a cure for cancer.

      There is nothing that is blow them as they have massive propaganda outlets to give them cover. Only the conservatives who look outside their propaganda bubble will even understand what happened.

      (I fully realize they see “us” in the exact same way.)

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      What’s the actual rationale though?

      For the cancer research, it was ostensibly too expensive. But what is the excuse now?

  • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    For the record, while I wholeheartedly agree with the principles behind this, this has to be handled with a Constitutional Amendment. Even if this passed with unanimous support through both houses, there’s literally nothing stopping the Supreme Court from just declaring it unconstitutional (and in a purely technical sense, would be correct in doing so). Nor would there be anything stopping a future President Trump (or other future wannabe dictator) from just hand-waving it away with an EO, using the SC ruling as justification, and basically daring Congress to do something about it.

    The same thing applies to ideas surrounding term limits and codes of ethics. It has to be done through a Constitutional amendment. I believe Biden even acknowledged this. And that’s where the probl