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.

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

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        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.

      • 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.