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.

No, because he's not a Republican.

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.

Come on Biden. Go to fucking town. Let your legacy be crazy ass fights.

You can tell the repubes were

A. Caught of guard by this and

B. Have no idea how to handle it.

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.

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.

This matches the broad strokes of the approach I favor as well.

There are 13 Federal circuits. Expand to one justice per circuit, then double that.

But the core of the approach, regardless of the exact number, is to shift to having cases heard by randomized panels of judges. The amount of power wielded by individual justices right now is just insane. Dilute it down so that the power rests with the body rather than individuals.

Further, randomizing who hears any given case would help curtail the current environment where test cases get tailored to the idiosyncracies and pet theories of individual judges.

SCOTUS should be deciding cases based on rational reading of the law, not entertaining wing nut theories that Thomas or Alito hinted at in previous decisions. That sort of nonsense becomes a lot less feasible if there's no guarantee a case will actually end up in front of Thomas or Alito.

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.

He's been working on #4 pretty consistently at least

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

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

In his final months... Not now, but, you know, get ready for it. I guess.

It’s more “thoughts & prayers”

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.

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.