Fair point. I’d been better off saying that I won’t hold my breath on any of this passing. You’re right, there is value behind starting this conversation.
I wonder what the history is of the Court upholding laws that restrict its own power, particularly of individual members. I honestly don't know, but I can't imagine the current court would go for it.
the second proposal, and probably the first, require a constitutional amendment (the first wouldn’t if you can convince a future court to revisit the decision). The third can probably be done via legislation.
on the first, I agree if you want “zero immunity”. I think you could argue that legislation could address the other aspects of their decision, including the evidentiary matters. They might overturn it but I think it’s reasonable
They went against the plain text of the constitution to reach their decision in that case. An ordinary federal law isn’t going to stop them. Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. No presidential exception exists in this clause despite their being a specific presidential exception noted in the previous clause (mandating the Chief Justice preside over a presidential impeachment trial). Had the founders intended any kind of presidential immunity to exist, it would have been noted here. It isn’t. It doesn’t exist. It’s an invention of neo-monarchists.
Bookmarked this for a reason https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/27/opinion/john-roberts-supreme-court.html
Or what you asshole. Are you going to continue striking down every piece of legislation that helps working class Americans? Are you going to continue cashing checks from billionaires and removing every guardrail from unchecked presidential immunity? Biden needs to push this SCOTUS stuff hard in his last several months.
Dipshit. They take turns being the 4th (read: meaningless) vote for the dissent to muddy the waters. Shape the story how you want, hey, Neil, we’re not slow.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/20/business/kroger-albertsons-ftc-lawsuit/index.html The Kroger lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in Cincinnati, relies in part on a landmark Supreme Court ruling in June that further curbed the power of regulatory agencies. The new lawsuit represents a key test case and the latest effort to reshape the administrative state in America. Experts say a Kroger victory would usher in a seismic shift in how the federal government challenges mergers. US officials fear that weakening regulators’ ability to fight monopolies could hurt consumers by giving corporations too much power to raise prices and close stores.
you mean you expect Congress to actually legislate? Forget that. No one on the right has any incentive to.