Biden delivered remarks from the Oval Office outlining his decision not to seek reelection, his first on-camera remarks since making that announcement on Sunday. In addition to explaining why he is ending his candidacy, he listed off his priorities for his remaining time as president.

“And I’m going to call for Supreme Court reform, because this is critical to our democracy,” Biden said.

Multiple outlets have reported that Biden is considering proposals to establish term limits for Supreme Court justices and an enforceable ethics code for those on the high court.

  • AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Would have been awesome if he did this at the start when it was obvious where things were headed before they destroyed our government, but I’ll take it.

    • ripcord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      Continuing to behave as if there’s a few brushfires that need put out, instead of a massive forest fire going on around him…well, it just sums the man up for me.

  • venusaur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    He should work on all of these:

    Term limits for Supreme Court

    Abolish Electoral college

    Restrictions on corporate real estate investing

    Forgive student loans

    Restrictions on members of government trading stocks

    • Nougat@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      The first two of those will require constitutional amendments. That’s a years-long process.

      • AIhasUse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        What’s the average amount of student loan forgiveness that students have received? Do you think it is more or less than a months rent?

        • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          4 months ago

          Unfortunately blanket student loan forgiveness keeps getting blocked by republicans in congress or judges they’ve appointed. They’ve only been able to provide relief to those who need it most. I know I haven’t gotten any. But that’s why average isn’t a great metric to use here-- I don’t need it, others do. Not to mention, average in terms of what-- absolute monetary value? Proportion of money received compared to total loan balance? Compared to original loan balance before interest?

          • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Because I’m bored though, I’ll humor you.

            Total direct loan forgiveness (not counting repayment pauses during covid or other relief measures): $167 billion

            Total US outstanding student loan debt: $1.77 trillion

            Total US outstanding student loan borrowers: 42.8 million

            Average student loan debt per outstanding borrower: ~$40k (same source as above)


            Total percentage of debt cancelled: 167m/1770m = 9.4%

            Average debt relief per person: $3,900 (!)

            So yes, it’s paid for multiple months worth of rent, and relieved about 10% of everyone’s debt on average! Better than I expected.

    • aaaaace@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Ranked choice voting in all national elections.

      Electoral districts by GIS hexagon mapping.

      NTRA, National Railroad Trackage Rights Act, which allows any railroad to run on any other railroad’s trackage and service any customer to promote competition.

      Death penalty for any self-identified religious person violating any rule in their religion.

      1 million dollar fine for each falsehood or misleading statement on broadcast media, including entertainment and drama. Normalizing lying has to stop.

      All theft and burglary convictions, including white collar, require making whole of all consequences to the victims instead of incarceration.

      National Police Registry (NPR) for all enforcement personnel.

      • venusaur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s a wild list haha. You’re a dreamer.

        Regarding RCV, it has to happen at the state level. I support that tho

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    4 months ago

    He can call for whatever he wants, but with a Republican house and less than 60 votes in the Senate, it goes nowhere.

      • irreticent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        If I remember right, he called Kim Jong Un and professed his love and admiration of him. Oh, wait… that was Trump.

          • irreticent@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Not shitting on Biden in that comment

            Neither was I. I was trying to join in on the “If I remember right” train and make a joke at Trump’s expense.

  • wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    A modern day Cincinnatus, the Supreme Court just made him a consul and he just chose to go back to being a common man for the good of the republic.

    If this plays out, he’ll go down in history books as the man who sacrificed himself to save Democracy.

    • Todd_cross@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      4 months ago

      From what I understand Cincinnatus gave up his dictatorship because he just liked to farm, and while he was an effective and generally good leader, he just liked to farm.

      • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Who wouldn’t?

        Out in the fresh air, soil in your hands, working the land to bring forth food.

        Or

        Court intrigue, back stabbing (literally sometimes), mountains of paperwork, assholes attacking your country at times. That shit would get old quick.

        • ikidd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Don’t be so quick to rush into farming. I went from IT to farming and just spent 3 hours in the ER getting stitched back up, for about the 4th time in 5 years, and I’m probably ahead of most.

          It ain’t a safe occupation. I should do something less hazardous like being a cop.

  • Hegar@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    241
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    If I understand the supreme court correctly, Biden could just shoot Roberts, Alito and Thomas and call it court reform, right? That makes it an official act?

    • ignirtoq@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      155
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Ironically if he did that and appointed new liberal justices, there’s a good chance the new Court would overturn this Court’s decision, and he could be convicted of murder and probably violating several other federal laws for that act.

        • ignirtoq@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          89
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Ex post facto is for if a new law is passed making something a crime, and the act was committed before its passage. This is all about interpretation of already passed law. It’s basically the justices saying that this was against the law the whole time. Ex post facto doesn’t apply here.

        • Sabata@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          The president is currently above the law, so the constitution is as good as toilet paper.

        • ignirtoq@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          No laws have been changed. Court decisions are not considered the passage of a law, so ex post facto doesn’t apply. Changes to how laws are interpreted don’t factor into ex post facto considerations.

    • samus12345@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      No need to do it himself. Order assassins to do it as an official act, then immediately pardon them.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Well, he would need a volunteer that way, then he writes them a pardon, because the order is still illegal and they can refuse it, it just doesn’t matter to him.

        Much easier to just buy a shotgun, call it Official Acts, and go to town.

      • Nurgus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        I think it’s traditional to say “Seal Team 6” rather than “assassins” at this point.

    • xenoclast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      That is only for very specific people. That part is a secret and they don’t tell you who. But I’m certain Biden isn’t on that list.

      • nul9o9@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        However, the justices that make that distinction relevant would no longer be able to do so?

        • catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I think the remainder would be against it regardless.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 months ago

      So, to answer seriously: if it’s an explicit presidential power he gets total personal immunity, although the office can still be restricted. If it’s an official act, he’s presumed to have personal immunity unless the prosecutor can argue that there’s no way that not having immunity could get in the way of doing the job of president, and they’re not allowed to use motivation to make the case.

      The president isn’t given the explicit power to reform the courts.
      He’s given explicit power to command the armed forces, but the rules of the armed forces are decided by Congress.

      So it’s a question arguing how “the president can’t kill members of the judiciary” doesn’t hinder the power of the executive branch without referencing why the president is killing them.

      • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Biden is allowed to kill Supreme Court justices because he might need to Navy SEAL people for security reasons. Allowing litigation on Biden’s SEAL powers would irreparably restrict Biden’s agency as commander in chief and would literally cause a 9/11

        • scaramobo@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          Would it literally? Like hijacked foreign planes flying into buildings? Like invading countries for oil? Literally?

          • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            The argument that the Supreme Court made pretty boils down to “if you let the president go to trial for Navy SEALing a Supreme Court Justice, then the chilling effect of potential litigation would make the president too scared to kill Osama Bin Laden. Therefore the president has legal immunity when Navy SEALing Supreme Court justices”.

            So yes, the Supreme Court actually believes that litigating a president could literally cause another 9/11.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          4 months ago

          I’m horrified to agree that that’s actually a valid argument.

          Judicial review of the established presidential power to direct the military to kill, ahem, “designate as a clear and immediate threat”, specific individuals in an emergency to protect the country would legitimately undermine the presidents power to defend the integrity of the nation.

          Goddamn was that a stupid fucking ruling.

    • fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yes but he has to be quick, if the Supreme Court gets wind of his move they’ll abolish him first.

      One of the downsides of having a government with branches that can unilaterally change each other at will.

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    4 months ago

    But he has no power to do that, right? Congress would have to go along, and the Supreme Court is not gonna just do it themselves.

    • Crismus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      He can have the CIA assassinate them, and keep it top secret. The Judiciary is it’s own section and without a true act of congress or Constitutional Amendment nothing can change without the Supreme Court going in on it.

      That Supreme Court case just set in stone what all Presidents have had for what they did in office. George W. never spent time in jail for war crimes, Reagan never went away for arming paramilitary groups, and Nixon didn’t go to jail for spying on the DNC.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yeah. Specifically, Mitch “too close to an election” McConnell would block the confirmation.

      Or so I assume. I had to go see if he was still alive, because I hadn’t heard from him in a while. Seems he got booed at the RNC.

  • bitwolf@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 months ago

    Crazy. Ive been thinking about enforceable ethics codes for companies. This would be a great start towards that.

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Hey guys cmon this is at least an upgrade from “president’s office planning to” lol

  • Microplasticbrain@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    God im so happy he’s bowing out, he’s not even going to do good shit while walking out the door. Sayanara milquetoast joe