Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will introduce legislation Thursday reaffirming that presidents do not have immunity for criminal actions, an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last month.

Schumer’s No Kings Act would attempt to invalidate the decision by declaring that presidents are not immune from criminal law and clarifying that Congress, not the Supreme Court, determines to whom federal criminal law is applied.

The court’s conservative majority decided July 1 that presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken within their official duties — a decision that threw into doubt the Justice Department’s case against Republican former President Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

Schumer, of New York, said that Congress has an obligation and the constitutional authority to check the Supreme Court on its decision.

  • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    The problem with this ruling was that they left “official act” incredibly vague, giving the SC the power in determining legitimate acts that are immune

    People keep saying Biden should just order a drone strike on the justices or his opponent but the next court could just be like ‘nope, not allowed’ and throw him in jail

    They really need to clarify it so that the SC can’t legislate from the bench

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      The problem with this ruling was that they left “official act” incredibly vague, giving the SC the power in determining legitimate acts that are immune

      But if they were arrested they wouldn’t be able to rule against Biden. 🤔

          • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Sure, but it increases the volatility and partisan nature of the court

            I don’t think SC reform is optional, nor do I think executive immunity is a solution. A fun one-time trick to make a point isn’t going to fix the systemic issues of the court or legislature.

            Edit: a huge symptom of the dysfunction of the federal government is the power that’s accumulating into the executive. ‘You can do whatever you want so long as the court happens to agree with you’ is just shit politics.

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              I’m not really sold on constitutionalism, but the least we could do is make it democratic.

              Appoint every adult in America to the Supreme Court and let the majority decide what the Constitution means. 🤷‍♀️

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      3 months ago

      left “official act” incredibly vague, giving the SC the power in determining legitimate acts that are immune

      For the last few decades conservatives have been building a SCOTUS with the sole intent of centralizing as much power as possible within them as they aren’t elected and have lifetime positions. They go for the youngest heritage foundation choices so they can retain that power for as long as possible.

      Chevron Deference is another perfect example of a power grab by the corrupt SCOTUS.