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

[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"