A leading House Democrat is preparing a constitutional amendment in response to the Supreme Court’s landmark immunity ruling, seeking to reverse the decision “and ensure that no president is above the law.”

Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York, the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, sent a letter to colleagues informing them of his intent to file the resolution, which would kickstart what’s traditionally a cumbersome amendment process.

“This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do — prioritize our democracy,” Morelle said in a statement to AP.

It’s the most significant legislative response yet to the decision this week from the court’s conservative majority, which stunned Washington and drew a sharp dissent from the court’s liberal justices warning of the perils to democracy, particularly as Trump seeks a return to the White House. Still, the effort stands almost no chance of succeeding in this Congress.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    to change some of the rules around the court you need an amendment because they’re in the constitution (lifetime appointments, for instance.)

    The 11th amendment was explicitly also added to overturn a supreme court ruling, so historically passing an amendment was not always a problem and if its a problem now maybe some effort should be placed into fixing the difficulty problem as well.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      to change some of the rules around the court you need an amendment because they’re in the constitution (lifetime appointments, for instance.)

      Or the President would need to use the new powers the court gave him on it, until the remaining justices decided to change the rules themselves.

    • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      The difficulty is that our governments and voters are so polarized that an amendment banning the government from drowning puppies wouldn’t have a chance in hell of getting passed.

      Half of the country wants the supreme court ruling to stay.