The 80-year-old was met with a smattering of applause, but even he did not seem excited by the moment.

Donald Trump has announced he will run for president in 2028 during a rambling speech to the Washington press corps.

Trump was speaking at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner when he appeared to make the announcement.

I won three times, now I’m gonna do it again,” he said, while putting on a cap that read “Trump 2028″.

“I’m gonna do it again. It should be easy.”

He went on to add that he won in 2020 but the election was rigged.

The 80-year-old was met with a smattering of applause, but even he did not seem excited by the moment.

Over the dead body of every patriot that stands for the Constitution, which reads in pertinent part:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice

-22nd Amendment

*Edit: Here’s the video of his announcement:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xyzWui2OX2I&t=2s&pp=2AECkAIB

He seem like he’s just joking to you?

    • BertramDitore@lemmy.zipEnglish
      11·
      2 days ago

      The court should be made up of a rotating panel of judges, made up of judges from the district courts, or lower courts in general, so the judges themselves are also subject to the court’s rulings, rather than a few permanent power-hungry narcissists imperiously sitting above us all with no accountability.

      Each judge must be part of the Supreme Court for a year or two at a time, call it a “detail,” then they go back to their normal job as a judge.

      • Windex007@lemmy.world
        2·
        2 days ago

        Ok, yeah, this sounds reasonable to me.

        This is still describing an ultimate judicial authority (aka, a “Supreme court”) just one with an alternative formulation of the conditions for which one serves on the court.

        Original guy seemed to imply just getting rid of it as a concept entirely.

    • SimpleMachine@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      5·
      2 days ago

      Here’s what I think. There should be 11 of them, and on an 11 year cycle they should be directly elected by the people 1 per year, 11 year term, 1 term limit. They should be selected from a pool that is made up of high level judges in the country, and the members of that pool who decide to run for the position need to pass some sort of test by an independent board of constitutional scholars.

      As the Supreme Court makes rulings, rulings that allow or affirm a right or action should be set in stone and no longer challengeable unless the entire panel of 11 judges unanimously decide that the issue needs to be reheard.

      Something like this anyway, I’m sure there is more to consider but this is the general idea that I think would work.

      • Windex007@lemmy.world
        3·
        1 day ago

        That sounds interesting, especially your view on rulings being unchallengeable. Full disclosure im Canadian so our system has differences.

        To me, the root cause of that tension really stems from what I view as an inappropriate use of the judicial as law writers. It’s politically convenient for elected officials to use the cover of some rulings to allow ambiguity to persist in the law.

        I think the ultimate cause of this in the US system is the general consensus (which by my read is not the intention of the law) that your constitution is immutable. Rulings on constitutionality are especially important because your constitution is amended so infrequently.

        But with any rulings, I think that they should actually be MORE ephemeral, not less, based on the amount of dissent between judges. If a ruling is 5-4, there is a strong argument that the underlying law is unclear. This type of split I think is better resolved by the demand that legislators update or amend the law to add clarity. Judges, as interpreters of the law, are useful in function as a type of “quality check”. A 5-4 ruling, I would argue, amounts to the judicial writing law in the absence of clarity.

        A 9-0 ruling? Law is fine. 8-1, probably still pretty good.

        Even on a 9-0, there is nothing STOPPING the legislative branch from re-writing law. It is thiers to write and rewrite.

        I just think tight splits should trigger some mechanism which demands a law-based resolution to clear up the underlying ambiguity within a specified time frame.

        I get why legislators were happy to avoid touching law about things like abortion and let SC rulings be thier cover… they’re elected. It is convenient and safe. But they’re not really doing thier jobs.

        Anyhow, that’s my 0.02