Late last week, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and 34 fellow Senate Democrats introduced legislation that would not only overturn the “Presidential Immunity” ruling invented by the U.S. Supreme Court’s right-wing majority last month in Trump v. United States, but would also strip both federal appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court of the jurisdiction to so much as stay criminal proceedings based upon a claim of “presidential immunity”.

The proposed No Kings Act [PDF] cites provisions of Article III, §2, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which expressly authorizes Congress to carve out “exceptions” to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. The newly introduced Act declares that “a President or Vice President is not entitled to any form of immunity from criminal prosecution for violations of the criminal laws of the United States unless specified by Congress,” and then invokes the Article III clause to prevent federal courts from blocking any such prosecution on the basis of the Trump v. U.S. ruling.

Moreover, as the Democrats’ announcement explains, the Supreme Court would also be barred from reviewing the Constitutionality of the No Kings Act itself. While the bill would allow Presidents and Vice Presidents to challenge its constitutionality, any such challenge would be ultimately decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rather than by SCOTUS.

According to Schumer’s statement:

The legislative Act, as proposed by Democrats, is manifestly different from President Biden’s proposal to overturn the presidential immunity decision by way of a Constitutional Amendment…

As attorney Jay Willis, editor-in-chief of Balls and Strikes observed during an interview last week with Brad Friedman, it could take decades before a proposed Constitutional Amendment became law, if ever. A prime example: 54-years ago, in 1972, Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment that aspires to prevent gender-based discrimination. It has yet to be ratified by all the states required to be added to the Constitution.

Contrast that with the No Kings Act. A simple Senate majority is all that would be required to eliminate or waive the Senate filibuster, allowing passage in the upper chamber. The Act could then be passed by majority votes in both Houses, and signed into law by the President.

In light of the current GOP House majority, it is exceedingly doubtful that the “No Kings Act” could garner the votes needed to become law prior to the November 5th Presidential Election. Its prospects could change dramatically, however, if Vice President Kamala Harris not only defeats Donald Trump, but also enters the White House with Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress. Indeed, it would come as no surprise if this proposed Act were to take center stage during the upcoming Democratic National Convention and during the ensuing the Presidential and Congressional campaigns. After all, recent polls reveal that the Court’s immunity decision for Presidents is opposed by 94% of Democrats, 87% of Independents and even 58% of Republicans.

Seems most Americans don’t like the idea of a President being allowed to order Seal Team 6 to break into their homes and murder them, as Trump’s legal team argued to be perfectly legal. The High Court’s activist right-wing majority, shamelessly, appeared to concur with the argument in their binding opinion.

As I wrote in “The Darkest Hour is Just Before Dawn” last year, “it is the dark and oppressive nature of the immensely unpopular decisions handed down by six unelected ‘radicals in robes‘, that, ironically, may help to facilitate a new dawn.”

By forcing Senate Republicans to procedurally block passage of the No Kings Act under current filibuster rules, Schumer can key-up an immensely popular issue that could help create a much-needed blue wave. One which, in turn, could help ensure the success of other Supreme Court reforms, such as the expansion of the Court to include 13 Justices.

Willis observed, during his interview last week with Friedman, that Supreme Court expansion is needed to help ensure the success of another reform proposed by Biden, 18-year term limits for Justices, which has been endorsed by NYU’s Brennan Center For Justice. Absent expansion of the High Court, there’s a significant risk that legislation mandating such term limits might be struck down as unconstitutional by the very same six right-wing Justices who enshrined the absurd notion of presidential immunity into American jurisprudence in strict contravention of the Constitution’s founders who had made clear in our founding document that, in the U.S., we have “No Kings”.