New York Dem will introduce amendment to reverse Supreme Court immunity ruling

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: The Hill

07/01/24 6:47 PM ET


Rep. Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.) said Monday he will introduce a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court ruling issued Monday, which largely shields former presidents from criminal prosecution for actions in office.

“I will introduce a constitutional amendment to reverse SCOTUS’ harmful decision and ensure that no president is above the law. This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do—prioritize our democracy,” Morelle wrote on the social platform X.

The Supreme Court handed down the 6-3 decision on Monday, ruling along ideological lines presidents have absolute immunity for actions that fall within the core responsibilities of their office and are “at least presumptively immune” for all other official acts.

The decision handed former President Trump a win in his federal election subversion case in Washington, D.C., first sending the case back to a lower court to decide whether his actions on Jan. 6 merit protection from criminal prosecution for decisions made while in the White House. When the Supreme Court hands down a ruling on a constitutional issue, the judgement is virtually final, and decisions can only be altered with a constitutional amendment and a new ruling.

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4750735-joe-morelle-amendment-supreme-court-immunity-ruling/

---

From the article -

When the Supreme Court hands down a ruling on a constitutional issue, the judgement is virtually final

No it's not. Since "Stare decisis" doesn't seem to exist anymore, a different SCOTUS in the future can simply declare that this current SCOTUS "erred", and can reverse it.

[Pepsidog]

1. Add to the amendment an ethics code, 18 year term limits and other sensible reforms

that most states would agree with.

[aeromanKC]

2. Not IF, but when.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. Visibility is beneficial even if it's going nowhere now. /nt

[Farmer-Rick]

4. I am not as worried about this type of immunity

It's a bad decision by the dancing Supremes but it is very similar to the types of immunity a military officer has.

If an officer ordered an attack and enlisted men were killed, the officer can not be charged with murder. The officer is considered immune from prosecution for official acts.

A Captain of a ship can order a person be put on bread and water as punishment for violations of the UCMJ. If the person dies because he had undiagnosed diabetes, and this was a real case that happened, the Captain can not be prosecuted because it was an official act. But the doctor monitoring him was brought up on charges.

But if the Captain of the ship sexually harassed one of his crew, the Captain has no immunity because misconduct is not considered part of his official duties.

So, other executive branch members have immunity from prosecution for official acts.

The trick is pulling apart what is official and what is not. In almost every case, misconduct is not considered part of their official duties.

[Bev54]

5. This is little more than theatre at this time, it is going nowhere and everyone knows it.

Solutions need to be realistic and have some hope of being implemented.

[NJCher]

6. Ah, the inevitable naysayer

Gloom
Gloom
Gloom

Doom
Doom
Doom

[wnylib]

9. There currently are not enough votes in Congress to meet

the Constitution's requirements for passage of an amendment. There are not enough blue states to do it, either.

That's not naysaying. It is just the reality of the situation. I am not saying that we shouldn't try it, just that it will take a lot of work to get those votes and the ratification.

https://www.google.com/search?q=passing+a+us+cinstitutional+amendment&oq=passing+a+us+cinstitutional+amendment&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30l2j0i390i512i650.22069j0j7&client=ms-android-americamovil-us-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

[NJCher]

12. It might

It might not.

At this point we don’t know how this shakes out.

People make assumptions about the motives of others quite easily. They do it very basically and simply, too.

This sc decision, made with obviously compromised votes (Thomas, Alito), could have a more complex reaction than one might think.

[wnylib]

16. I hope that's true because, to pass it, we will need

2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate, and ratification by 3/4 of the states.

Currently the House majority, although slim, sides with Trump. The Dem majority in the Senate is slim. Maybe the new Congress after the election will be able to pass it. Then we go to the states.

Not impossible, and worth the effort that it will take. Maybe a plus side is the attention it will give to Trump's criminality. Maybe MAGAs will fear that the ruling gives Biden too much power now.

[NJCher]

22. Yes

Maybe a plus side is the attention it will give to Trump's criminality. Maybe MAGAs will fear that the ruling gives Biden too much power now.

++You're a writer, am I correct? Well, you know as well as I do that when you start writing, you never really know what's going to come about.

It's important to not feel defeated and to give into negative bias (which is all too common here).

Like writing, get started: one never knows where it will take you. That's what I like about what this legislator did.

Oh, and ask for the world! You can always pare back but it's a self-defeating mistake to ask for just a little, like you don't deserve it.

We DO NOT deserve decisions made by liars and self-admitted biased SC judges. If we let this stand without a fight then it's on us.

[wnylib]

24. No, I am not a writer. Not professionally anyway.

Never published anything. Never tried to.
But, from experience in writing college papers, I get your point.

[NJCher]

25. --

[BumRushDaShow]

14. "I am not saying that we shouldn't try it"

The "promotion" of it says "Democrats are responding and doing something", a sentiment that unfortunately many on DU claim doesn't happen.

All options on the table.

There will need to be some serious looks at what legislation might be needed to fix this, just like what was done by passage of 2 "Electoral Count Acts" that changed/clarified/codified things surrounding the Electoral College process that was originally written as a Constitutional Amendment

I.e.,

12th Amendment

Amendment XII

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

(snip)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxii

Electoral Count Act of 1887
Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 (engrossed in an Omnibus spending bill)

[Bev54]

30. I am hardly a naysayer, quite the opposite but I am realistic.

[BumRushDaShow]

7. "Solutions need to be realistic"

"Solutions" consist of "pragmatic" steps AND "P.R." steps when you are dealing in an environment of "social media communications", where information (and misinformation) travels at the speed of light around the world.

No "option" should be removed from the table.

[NJCher]

8. Oh and have you noticed

The naysayer is inevitably a soothsayer, too?

There are professionals who do that sort of thing.
You’re not one of them.

[Bev54]

31. You sure are quick to label someone, instead of calling someone down, maybe just make your argument.

[NJCher]

35. I don't need your help in what to post

That is my business and mine alone. I do know something about predicting, though, and you have -0- skills in that regard.

Not to mention that such negativity is a trite, unoriginal response. Adds nothing to the discussion except for the fact that it lets us know there's another person with negativity bias posting at DU. Like we need another one of those.

How about you get ahold of Morelle's aids, find out what he's putting in his amendment, and tell us exactly where you'd like to see it made "realistic?" Did you make any inquiry whatsoever before you made that criticism? Don't bother answering: I know you didn't.

[Bev54]

37. Such a lovely person

[Martin68]

29. You can call it theater, but it is important to do everything we can to bring this to the attention of the public. Many

people are less informed and this kind of action brings the issue to their attention in a meaningful way. Not all action achieves quick and easy results.

[Miguelito Loveless]

10. Even if we could get the votes

(and we can't), Injustice Roberts made plain that he and his merry band of arsonist will follow no law.

[NJCher]

11. Where did he say that?

Got a link?

[Miguelito Loveless]

17. Have you been reading the rulings of late?

Last week they legalized bribery. This week they declared the president above the law. Well, their president.

[NJCher]

23. of course

I read and sound off here every day. That's why I have 34,000+ posts.

Link?

[Bev54]

32. That does not mean you have read the ruling

[NJCher]

33. here ya' go

I have read the ruling. Help you out any?

[BumRushDaShow]

28. Roberts actually walked back some of the Clarence Thomas-written "Bruen" decision

which basically insisted that the 2nd Amendment demands there be no gun regulation at all, no matter what state of mind or criminal background you have!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3265045

Many of us assumed that they would allow domestic abusers with court orders, to have guns so they could go on a shooting rampage at any time against their spouses/former spouses/partners/families... Because. Second Amendment.

The ruling was 8 - 1 "NO they can't get a gun.", where the "1" was the idiotic, bought-and-paid-for author of that ridiculous Bruen opinion.

[The Grand Illuminist]

13. Dead on arrival

The only absolute way to get amendments passed is through article V means. This means we NEED to elect pro convention democrats in state legislation houses.

[thesquanderer]

15. re: "the judgement is virtually final" -- "No it's not."

You're not actually disagreeing... your point is covered by the quote's use of the word "virtually."

Though I do think there was poor phrasing in the article. It says:

When the Supreme Court hands down a ruling on a constitutional issue, the judgement is virtually final, and decisions can only be altered with a constitutional amendment and a new ruling.

That "and" should more properly be an "or." The decision can be reversed either by a constitutional amendment OR (as you said) a new ruling. (If such a constitutional amendment passed, there would be no need for a new SC ruling.)

[BumRushDaShow]

18. My complaint WAS about how it was phrased

there is NOTHING "final" when it comes to law and the Constitution, and their use of the word "virtually" was a weak excuse akin to reluctantly saying "well some... not all", but IMHO it failed. Their intent was to proffer that we are screwed, and is lazy journalism at best.

But I have also provided another option in this thread here - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3265006

(i.e., legislation that "clarifies" like was done with the Electoral Count Act(s) that modified/clarified the 12th Amendment)

[thesquanderer]

21. To me, "virtually final" was a way to help explain the siginficance of this amendment being offered...

...i.e. that it was one of only two ways to "fix" the situation, neither of which is easy. Since the whole foundation of the article was the offering of this amendment, I think that was a fair point to make. I think it IS virtually (that is, "almost" ) final, it is indeed very hard to change it, it's certainly not something that will happen overnight, and these are the only paths to address it, only one of which is even conceivably under our control, at least as long as the current justices are sitting on the court.

Your additional idea of legislation is interesting, though also challenging without control of both houses, and I think, itself, possibly not immune from being struck down by the same court, if challenged...?

But tough as it may be, we have to keep trying to find ways to fight bad decisions. Sometimes bad decisions do ultimately get reversed, even if it takes many years. (I'm hoping I live long enough to see a reversal on Citizens United.)

Even a proposed constitutional amendment that seems likely to go nowhere serves a purpose, in promoting awareness, and maybe, eventually, success. I mean, we still haven't given up on the ERA.

[BumRushDaShow]

27. To follow-up

(had to run out to the store and do some other errands)

To me, "virtually final" was a way to help explain the siginficance of this amendment being offered...

...i.e. that it was one of only two ways to "fix" the situation, neither of which is easy.

Well as I posted (that you acknowledge below) there are other things that can be done.

I think the effort to submit a resolution for a Constitutional Amendment will at least "put it in the Congressional Record" (for history's sake) that our party is not going to sit back and say... "Um okay".

Since the whole foundation of the article was the offering of this amendment, I think that was a fair point to make.

At the time of posting, no other outlet had this, with most on the "Let's keep trashing Biden tour" with dozens of links per news site written by reporters who are stuck on stupid and trapped in the last Thursday timeframe... or you'll see these media entities wasting half of their news site main pages and many column inches on "Taylor Swift", "Travis Kelce", "the Olympics", "Caitlin Clark", and other entertainment/sports stuff. So it should have been newsworthy enough to post here as something that someone from our party is attempting as an option.

Just checking again and "The Guardian" now has the story - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/02/joe-morelle-constitution-amendment-trump-immunity

Sites like "Roll Call", "The Hill" and "Politico", etc., as right-leaning as the latter two tend to be, they are also focused on "politics" (primarily) and avoid blending "news" with "entertainment/sports" which results in the kind of "infotainment" story writing that the OTA network and cable news sites do.

I think it IS virtually (that is, "almost" ) final, it is indeed very hard to change it, it's certainly not something that will happen overnight, and these are the only paths to address it, only one of which is even conceivably under our control, at least as long as the current justices are sitting on the court.

Well as I mentioned elsewhere in another thread, the last time this kind of broad nonsensical ruling happened with the "Bruen" 2nd Amendment case, it had to be walked back - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3265045

Your additional idea of legislation is interesting, though also challenging without control of both houses, and I think, itself, possibly not immune from being struck down by the same court, if challenged...?

There is a point of no return if they do that because there are efforts to start actually doing a "check" on the highest level of the federal Judiciary to match what the rest of the federal judiciary is subject to, which outside of the "impeachment power", hasn't really been attempted yet, but may finally happen. The "court-shopping" has been one such trigger to start reigning them in.

But tough as it may be, we have to keep trying to find ways to fight bad decisions.

Legislation which requires control of legislative chambers AND the White House which = GOTV.

We can't have the "I want my pony or I won't vote" politics.

Sometimes bad decisions do ultimately get reversed, even if it takes many years. (I'm hoping I live long enough to see a reversal on Citizens United.)

John McCain and Russ Feingold were around when their campaign finance law was tossed out with Citizen's United and they had the opportunity to do something with it before they departed the chamber (or the world), but it unfortunately didn't happen. Someone needs to take their ball and run with it but that has been difficult because every time the GOP gets in, they crash the economy, and we waste so much time and resources trying to dig out of it that we never get chance to get these other important things done.

Even a proposed constitutional amendment that seems likely to go nowhere serves a purpose, in promoting awareness, and maybe, eventually, success. I mean, we still haven't given up on the ERA.

Well I think that is part of why this is being done - as a "shot across the bow"

[FakeNoose]

19. I hope I live to see the day when this SCOTUS ruling is declared null and void

That's all, my friends.

I'm 73 years old, and I've hung in for a lot of struggles along the way. It's hard to remain optimistic, you know? But I do believe that Biden will win in November, and it will be the sorry end of Chump.

What happens in Biden's 2nd term will determine the future of our country, our society, our culture ... and the future wellbeing of our grandchildren. My Dad's generation fought the Nazi's and Japs in World War II. What legacy will our generation leave? I'm almost afraid to think about it. We must succeed for our grandchildren.

[BlueWavePsych]

20. Worth a shot.

eom

[MorbidButterflyTat]

26. Just wondering....

are the people who scream about Dems "waking up" and taking a marshmallow to a gunfight the same ones who shit all over any Democratic attempt to legally fight back?

[republianmushroom]

34. Do it and good luck to you.

[republianmushroom]

36. Question, Would the lynching of the VP been cover as an official act,

thereby being covered by the Supreme Courts immunity ruling ?