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

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.

    • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 months ago

      ELI5, How does no term limits allow for impartiality?

      ELI5 is for someone else to provide. I’ll instead give you the answer an adult deserves.

      There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right. - MLK Jr.

      Compare a SCOTUS justice to any legislator or the President: The legislators and President must act as their corporate donors wish or they’ll not be re-elected. But, the fundamental ideology of the US (and prerequisite to a world I wish to live in) mandates that the minority be protected from the majority and the majority from the mediocre outcomes of democracy.

      This role is never safe, politic, or popular. The lack of term limits allows SCOTUS justices to judge without these concerns. We hope they act for the People. But, we also risk of them acting as they do now.

      The system is broken. But, the proposed changes make it arguably much worse as they limit the ability for the system to self-recover in the future. They appear at best to be kicking the can to future generations (typical boomer shit).

      • loopedcandle@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        Ok next question, because I think I interpreted the term differently than you did.

        There are two types of term limits right? Quantity of terms, and length of terms.

        Status quo: Q - one term, L - for life.

        Wouldn’t limiting the length but not the quantity maintain the incentive for impartiality? So there is no concept of a second term?

        I’m not trolling btw, I’m looking for an honest airing of the Q.

        • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
          0·
          2 months ago

          I’m not trolling btw, I’m looking for an honest airing of the Q.

          You’re not coming across that way. edit: meaning I’m perceiving good faith

          Wouldn’t limiting the length but not the quantity maintain the incentive for impartiality? So there is no concept of a second term?

          I’m not understanding how implementing a length limit but not a quantity limit would positively effect impartiality. That’s what currently exists for the entirety of legislature. They’re far from free to make their own choices.

          But, what if we had both a length limit and a term limit of one term? That seems a decent idea on the surface. But, I want to think about it for awhile before saying anything meaningful

          • loopedcandle@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
            0·
            2 months ago

            For an Internet discussion, I really appreciate your open and honest exchange. Good day fellow Internet person.

            • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
              1·
              2 months ago

              I read the academic paper I found. And, I’ve had a first conversation about this with another IRL.

              I still think length term limits on Justices is like many other good ideas: There’s no practical way to implement. All would result in severe collateral damage due to the nature and complexity of the systemic context. But, my reasoning is much more nuanced.

              Thank you. I appreciate that you pushed me along.