Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has introduced legislation reaffirming presidents don't have immunity for criminal actions, an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last month.

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.

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    182·
    3 months ago

    I know this is mostly for show, but how strong is the Constitutional argument being made? I can’t think of another example of Congress attempting to limit the authority of the Supreme Court via legislation. Can it be done at all without triggering a Constitutional crisis?

    • Feathercrown@lemmy.worldEnglish
      22·
      3 months ago

      Yes. The supreme court exists to interpret unclear parts of legislation. If you make a constitutional amendment that says “you cannot do X”, it is outside of their authority to say “actually, you can do X”. Not that that’s stopped them before…

      • Timii@biglemmowski.winEnglish
        10·
        3 months ago

        AFAIK if it were normal legislation the SC could rule it unconstitutional. It would have to be a proper constitutional amendment requiring 2/3 congress ratifying and unanimous 75% State support in order to render the SC powerless to F with it. Even then, SC could probably F with its interpretation to the point it is toothless. Please correct me if I’m wrong because I hope I am.

        Edit: 75% State support (thanks for not letting me down)

    • KazuyaDarklight@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      3 months ago

      If you look into the history of the court, most of the Supreme Courts power today is something it’s just been “allowed” to claim and has been institutionalized over time. Knocking them down a peg is doable on paper, it would just be crazy contentious since the GOP likes the current status quo.

    • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
      9·
      3 months ago

      The constitution doesn’t even give the supreme court the power to declare things unconstitutional. They just decided to do that early on and everyone went along with it.

      Suppose the court does declare such a law unconstitutional. Imagine how it would look. Yes, such a law might not be the end of things, but if it was declared unconstitutional it would be a clear call for hobbling the court, because it would demonstrate they’re corrupt.

      • Hegar@fedia.io
        5·
        3 months ago

        it would demonstrate they’re corrupt

        I think all the corruption already demonstrate that.

        The SC is fully captured by the far right, they’re already throwing away pieces of democracy to save trump, they’re past caring about open corruption.

        • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
          3·
          3 months ago

          You don’t need to convince me. I’m talking about gathering critical support for something like a constitutional amendment. Nothing wrong with passing a bill first. Amendments are hard.

          • Hegar@fedia.io
            1·
            3 months ago

            It would add further pressure on top of all the previous examples of open corruption, for sure.

            • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
              2·
              3 months ago

              Remember you need two thirds of both chambers to pass an amendment, followed by three fourths of states. In our current environment that’s nearly impossible. We should be throwing everything at the wall, and if one thing is rejected, that may sway people who haven’t been tuned in, which could be crucial in applying further action.

              There’s also value in doing fucking anything. Why should people support a party that won’t fight for what’s important? I refuse to just complain, or to accept hopelessness. I expect that something will be done, and I’m going to vote and act accordingly.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.comEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      The courts are only supposed to interpret laws, not make them. Every time Congress passes a new law (assuming it’s constitutional) they limit the power of the courts by constraining the interpretations the courts can make. Saying the President is not above the law doesn’t limit the power of the courts in any way that isn’t totally routine.