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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1651 year ago

    I was hoping for that.

    He’s a lame duck now. That means he’s free to pursue policies that will add to his legacy, and without having to give even the tiniest shit about what the establishment and the donor class might think about it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        181 year ago

        I’m even wondering if the timing was intentional. Right after the RNC convention and they took all the momentum from Trump in one single announcement. Maybe they lined to the donors to pump up the donations right after the announcement to gain more momentum. If so, it was really genius.

    • 👍Maximum Derek👍OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      201 year ago

      I agree in sentiment, but the lame duck doesn’t start until November 6th. And we need to stop normalizing otherwise because the republicans have already weaponized it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      191 year ago

      That’s not entirely true with Kamala being tied to his administration. I still think it would only make her more popular, but his actions aren’t truly lame duck.

  • wildncrazyguy138
    link
    fedilink
    641 year ago

    A modern day Cincinnatus, the Supreme Court just made him a consul and he just chose to go back to being a common man for the good of the republic.

    If this plays out, he’ll go down in history books as the man who sacrificed himself to save Democracy.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      381 year ago

      From what I understand Cincinnatus gave up his dictatorship because he just liked to farm, and while he was an effective and generally good leader, he just liked to farm.

          • Nougat
            link
            fedilink
            61 year ago

            Washington very definitely wanted to get back to Mount Vernon. Jefferson always said he wanted to stay at home, but that was at least partially performative.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        251 year ago

        Who wouldn’t?

        Out in the fresh air, soil in your hands, working the land to bring forth food.

        Or

        Court intrigue, back stabbing (literally sometimes), mountains of paperwork, assholes attacking your country at times. That shit would get old quick.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          191 year ago

          Don’t be so quick to rush into farming. I went from IT to farming and just spent 3 hours in the ER getting stitched back up, for about the 4th time in 5 years, and I’m probably ahead of most.

          It ain’t a safe occupation. I should do something less hazardous like being a cop.

  • @[email protected]M
    link
    fedilink
    381 year ago

    He can call for whatever he wants, but with a Republican house and less than 60 votes in the Senate, it goes nowhere.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        If I remember right, he called Kim Jong Un and professed his love and admiration of him. Oh, wait… that was Trump.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Not shitting on Biden in that comment, just pointing out that “Calling” for something doesn’t mean shit.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Not shitting on Biden in that comment

            Neither was I. I was trying to join in on the “If I remember right” train and make a joke at Trump’s expense.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    291 year ago

    But he has no power to do that, right? Congress would have to go along, and the Supreme Court is not gonna just do it themselves.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      231 year ago

      Yeah. Specifically, Mitch “too close to an election” McConnell would block the confirmation.

      Or so I assume. I had to go see if he was still alive, because I hadn’t heard from him in a while. Seems he got booed at the RNC.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      161 year ago

      He can have the CIA assassinate them, and keep it top secret. The Judiciary is it’s own section and without a true act of congress or Constitutional Amendment nothing can change without the Supreme Court going in on it.

      That Supreme Court case just set in stone what all Presidents have had for what they did in office. George W. never spent time in jail for war crimes, Reagan never went away for arming paramilitary groups, and Nixon didn’t go to jail for spying on the DNC.

  • Todd Bonzalez
    link
    fedilink
    541 year ago

    Coulda done this in the first months in office, and actually made a difference, but I guess doing it for votes during an election is better than nothing?

  • Hegar
    link
    fedilink
    2411 year ago

    If I understand the supreme court correctly, Biden could just shoot Roberts, Alito and Thomas and call it court reform, right? That makes it an official act?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      61 year ago

      No need to do it himself. Order assassins to do it as an official act, then immediately pardon them.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Well, he would need a volunteer that way, then he writes them a pardon, because the order is still illegal and they can refuse it, it just doesn’t matter to him.

        Much easier to just buy a shotgun, call it Official Acts, and go to town.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      That is only for very specific people. That part is a secret and they don’t tell you who. But I’m certain Biden isn’t on that list.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      131 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        17
        edit-2
        1 year 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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          121 year 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          Would it literally? Like hijacked foreign planes flying into buildings? Like invading countries for oil? Literally?

          • Justin
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 year 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.

    • ignirtoq
      link
      fedilink
      1551 year ago

      Ironically if he did that and appointed new liberal justices, there’s a good chance the new Court would overturn this Court’s decision, and he could be convicted of murder and probably violating several other federal laws for that act.

        • ignirtoq
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          No laws have been changed. Court decisions are not considered the passage of a law, so ex post facto doesn’t apply. Changes to how laws are interpreted don’t factor into ex post facto considerations.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            Yeah, I deleted the comment a while ago when I read another response explaining that. TIL!

        • ignirtoq
          link
          fedilink
          891 year ago

          Ex post facto is for if a new law is passed making something a crime, and the act was committed before its passage. This is all about interpretation of already passed law. It’s basically the justices saying that this was against the law the whole time. Ex post facto doesn’t apply here.

        • Sabata
          link
          fedilink
          61 year ago

          The president is currently above the law, so the constitution is as good as toilet paper.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    601 year ago

    He should work on all of these:

    Term limits for Supreme Court

    Abolish Electoral college

    Restrictions on corporate real estate investing

    Forgive student loans

    Restrictions on members of government trading stocks

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Ranked choice voting in all national elections.

      Electoral districts by GIS hexagon mapping.

      NTRA, National Railroad Trackage Rights Act, which allows any railroad to run on any other railroad’s trackage and service any customer to promote competition.

      Death penalty for any self-identified religious person violating any rule in their religion.

      1 million dollar fine for each falsehood or misleading statement on broadcast media, including entertainment and drama. Normalizing lying has to stop.

      All theft and burglary convictions, including white collar, require making whole of all consequences to the victims instead of incarceration.

      National Police Registry (NPR) for all enforcement personnel.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        That’s a wild list haha. You’re a dreamer.

        Regarding RCV, it has to happen at the state level. I support that tho

    • Nougat
      link
      fedilink
      161 year ago

      The first two of those will require constitutional amendments. That’s a years-long process.

      • aname
        link
        fedilink
        81 year ago

        Hopefully Kamala would continue that process

      • I'm back on my BS 🤪
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        Not really. There’s a popular vote interstate compact that is designed to bypass a constitutional amendment. Basically, the law says that once enough states agree to it, meaning to total electoral votes reaches 270, their votes go for whichever candidate won the popular vote.

        • Nougat
          link
          fedilink
          41 year ago

          I am well familiar with that one, but that is a state-level endeavor, and I’m not sure that Biden, as a federal office-holder, should be involved in that.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          The best time to plant a tree was 30 years ago. The second best time is today.

          They need to get on it!

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        What’s the average amount of student loan forgiveness that students have received? Do you think it is more or less than a months rent?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          121 year ago

          Unfortunately blanket student loan forgiveness keeps getting blocked by republicans in congress or judges they’ve appointed. They’ve only been able to provide relief to those who need it most. I know I haven’t gotten any. But that’s why average isn’t a great metric to use here-- I don’t need it, others do. Not to mention, average in terms of what-- absolute monetary value? Proportion of money received compared to total loan balance? Compared to original loan balance before interest?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Because I’m bored though, I’ll humor you.

            Total direct loan forgiveness (not counting repayment pauses during covid or other relief measures): $167 billion

            Total US outstanding student loan debt: $1.77 trillion

            Total US outstanding student loan borrowers: 42.8 million

            Average student loan debt per outstanding borrower: ~$40k (same source as above)


            Total percentage of debt cancelled: 167m/1770m = 9.4%

            Average debt relief per person: $3,900 (!)

            So yes, it’s paid for multiple months worth of rent, and relieved about 10% of everyone’s debt on average! Better than I expected.

  • Cyrus Draegur
    link
    fedilink
    English
    401 year ago

    “call for”??? FUCK THAT! just issue a few “official presidential acts” drone striking the corrupt ones, and also anyone who refuses to approve the replacements he appoints.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      191 year ago

      I’m hoping he makes a bunch of executive decisions, make a few crazy ones, pardons himself and bounce.

      • Cyrus Draegur
        link
        fedilink
        English
        121 year ago

        Especially if he invites the supreme court to correct their presidential immunity mistake as his last act. Of course, shit that wasn’t illegal when you did it can’t (usually) legally be charged after it’s made illegal. Ex post facto laws are a hard sell.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          51 year ago

          That wouldn’t be an ex post facto law situation though, would it? There is no new law, just a different interpretation.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      Continuing to behave as if there’s a few brushfires that need put out, instead of a massive forest fire going on around him…well, it just sums the man up for me.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      81 year ago

      They didn’t give him unlimited power to compel things, just the apparent ability to legally break laws. So unless he is sending people with guns and or handcuffs to compel things, nothing would happen.

      For example if he made an Executive Order outlining corruption consequences, the Supreme Court would just say “Lol no!” He could send in people to arrest them I guess, but he would have to suspend their constitutional rights to a trial. I don’t think people would feel good watching people get no due process.

  • bitwolf
    link
    fedilink
    81 year ago

    Crazy. Ive been thinking about enforceable ethics codes for companies. This would be a great start towards that.