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.

  • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    Here’s the problem with a constitutional amendment:

    You will never, ever get a single politician to vote for an amendment specifically designed to weaken the power of their own party leader. No Republican will ever vote for this, especially right now when there’s so much momentum going Trump’s way. It. Will. Never. Happen.

    I have a better chance of Taylor Swift dumping her boyfriend and declaring her undying love for me during her next concert than a single Republican voting in favor of this. This is performance and nothing more.

    The only realistic path to reversing this is:

    • Electing Biden or whoever the Dem nominee is in November.
    • Hope that Thomas and Alito die, retire, get abducted by aliens, or whatever during Biden’s term so Biden can replace them with two liberal judges, giving liberals a 5-4 majority.
    • Bring a case to the court (I don’t know who would have standing to bring such a case, but…) to give the Supreme Court the opportunity to reverse that decision.

    Rinse and repeat for every bad decision this half-baked court has made.

    This is it. That is the only path. Any other attempt to fix these problems either require a constitutional amendment no GOP politician or governor would ever vote for or ratify or can simply be struck down by the very Supreme Court that caused this mess in the first place.

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      4 months ago

      There’s also the malicious compliance path (which, to be fair, would also have more than its fair share of dire complications and implications, but it would at least address the immediate and imminent threat of a fascist takeover in 4 months).

      But Biden is 100% not going to do that.

    • Switchy85@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      About the standing thing: the beauty is the current Supreme Court has eliminated that as a real requirement, so you can just have someone sue for theoretical harm and be all good.

    • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 months ago

      This is it. That is the only path.

      You don’t need Republicans to expand the court. Just saying. It’s not the ONLY path.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      There’s also having a Democrat abuse this in a way that is directly a danger to GOP politicians and using Biden as a sacrificial lamb. Something like ordering the military to execute several members of Congress and SCOTUS justices and then pardoning them.

      But let’s be fair, the underlying argument they’re using is one meant to do things like not make the president guilty of murder for anyone killed by the military or in action under the military, not to protect Trump from conspiring to do crimes with people in his admin.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      I agree but there is another path: if Democrats win both houses of Congress and the President, and Senate Democrats agree to blow up the filibuster, they can pack the court whenever they want.

      I am of the opinion they should slam the Court up to 11 right away, then 13 in time for the 2026 court term. Then go to Republicans and say “You can let us put four 40-ish Liberals on the Court for lifetime appointments, and gamble on getting your own trifecta to re-pack it, or you can work with us on an amendment to reform the court, put in term limits, and limit its partisanship”.

      • chumbalumber@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        What’s interesting is that this precise scenario happened in the 1910s in the UK (given that at the time the house of lords was the highest court in the country as well as the upper legislative chamber). Lloyd George called an election on the subject, and negotiated with the king that if the lords didn’t vote for a reduction in their powers, he would create a massive influx of Liberal peers.

        Interesting episode in history.

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

      If you have a majority on the court that takes this disastrous decision as seriously as they should and are ready to overturn it, then it’s fairly easy to get the case to happen. You just need to have a sitting president tell the justice department to bring a case against him. Doesn’t have to be for anything big, just literally any criminal offense that can be brought to trial and appealed. He can even appeal directly to the supreme court and ask that they expedite the appeal. They hear the appeal, issue a ruling, and the precedent is gone.

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

      For number 3, if they really wanted to save us, on their last day the could “officially” order a marine to steal a lollipop from a baby. I’d give it right back, and there may be a better, less painful law, but he could break it and get charged. Maybe speeding. I wonder if there is a precident and another president has been held to the law before. I Grant you that the court in is current state would ignore it.