Follow

So it's early, but has anyone read about how we can drag executive immunity back into the realm of sanity? Things I can think of:
1) Legislation
2) Constitutional amendment
3) SCOTUS re-do
All of these will take time and possibly a new Senate. Are there others? Does #1 even work?

@Boyceaz 1 won't work although I am curious about Ocasio-Cortez's mpeachment move.

2 would work but is very very slow and requires many Dem governors to work.

3 would work but we need 60 in the senate. I favor Biden arresting and sequestering the SCrOTUS we have off shore leaving 3 Dems (and maybe ACB so it's 3 to 1) to vote on all cases, and bringing a remdial case before this smaller court.

@TrueBloodNet We don't need 60 if we have 50 that are willing to change the rules (Sinema and Manchin are gone in January).

AOC's move goes to #3, not #1.

#2 Can be surprisingly fast if it continues to be the case that 70% of US opposes immunity. Are there any sane R governors?

@Boyceaz There is no legislation that is not overseen by SCrOTUS so #1 is not viable. Unless we remove members of SCrOTUS first.

#2 will not be fast, and in fact won't happen at all. "An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose."

@Boyceaz This can't be changed by Dems dropping the 60 vote rule. It's in the Constitution and would require 66 Senators and 290 House members.

whitehouse.gov/about-the-white

In addition, if a constitutional convention were called, other amendments could be proposed and passed. There are 27 states with Republican governors because of the nearly empty red states.

@Boyceaz And there hasn't been a Constitutional convention since 1787 so color me skeptical that could be organized in under 2 years. And would not be good for our side in the long run as long as land votes.

@TrueBloodNet I agree. A Constitutional Convention is the end of democracy in the US.

@Boyceaz I think numbers 2 & 3 could definitely work (I'm interpreting 're-do' to mean expand the court & appoint sane ppl, who would repudiate the immunity case if given the opportunity).

The only way I can think of where legislation could work is by limiting SCOTUS' jurisdiction to prevent them from hearing cases having to do with presidential prosecutions, say.

But none of these will rehab the current criminal cases, I don't think. US v trump is the law, and will probably outlive trump.

@rpardee There still needs to be something (Constituationally?) whereby an appointed Judge can't rule on a case involving anyone who appointed them.

@Boyceaz

Sign in to participate in the conversation

CounterSocial is the first Social Network Platform to take a zero-tolerance stance to hostile nations, bot accounts and trolls who are weaponizing OUR social media platforms and freedoms to engage in influence operations against us. And we're here to counter it.