Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is introducing 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.

      • The Snark Urge@lemmy.worldEnglish
        64·
        4 months ago

        Thanks, I realize now that in my rush to be humorously cynical, I was actually understating how bad things are.

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        48·
        4 months ago

        Soon to be named the “No Kings, Queers, Trans, Ukraine Aid, Unmarried Women, No-Fault Divorce, JD Vance Couch-Fucking Jokes, And We Were Just Kidding About The No Kings Thing” Act.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        10·
        4 months ago

        What, you want us to have a king? (Or federal mandatory ten commandments posted in schools, birth control to be made illegal, and an MPAA surveillance program to be required for every PC?)

        Only one yes or no, please.

    • Kalcifer
      44·
      4 months ago

      You may be making a joke, I’m not sure, but, in case you’re not, this line of thinking is often used by governments to push through legislation whose content would otherwise be objectionable. It’s akin to just reading the headline of a news article without reading its content. An example could be something like “The Patriot Act”: “Who could possibly vote against patriotism at a time like this?” — look at its content. One could also look at the COVID relief bills and notice just how much content has absolutely nothing to do with COVID relief. The names of legislative bills are manufactured for the very purpose of appealing to one’s emotions and to distract from objectionable content.

      • The Snark Urge@lemmy.worldEnglish
        8·
        4 months ago

        My humor can be awkwardly multifaceted. I know the internet likes jokes to be obvious, but I have found this difficult.