American Politics: The Speaker's Cornered

[Thermodolia]

You don’t know that. You’re assuming they would. And that uncertainty will lead to market collapse and fuck everyone over. In the meantime the republicans will most definitely get a stay on the order which means economy goes boom and I fucking starve and lose my home and car.

Yes doing something uncertain sounds great when you don’t have to rely on the fucking government to survive.

??? There was uncertainty this whole time and the economy didn't crash. Would only happen after an actual default.

No I’m talking about after the 5th. The case wouldn’t have made its way through the system before June 5th, that’s when the uncertainty would kick in.

And as someone who relies on the feds I’d really not have that uncertainty about where my money is or when I’d get to eat.

It’s easy to be a revolutionary when you don’t have anything to worry about

[Umeria]

They won't because regardless of the technicalities a default would destroy confidence in the US govt, crashing the economy. No institution as intimately connected with the rich as the Supreme Court would be willing to do that.

Again you are making assumptions you can’t cash. The guys on the court are originalists, they’ll rule similar to how Elwher said.

Remember Dobbs wasn’t good for business they didn’t care. They’d totally rule to fuck over a democrat president because an economic crisis will lead to a massive win for the GOP.

The SC are not originialists, they don't really have any principles at all. There's a difference between being bad for business and the complete implosion of the economy. Dobbs was terrible electorally for the GOP so that's not a high priority.

Actually the deal expands food stamps so…

It adds work requirements for some and exemptions for others - there is still a cut involved. And it's only a net gain if it can be perfectly implemented

[Umeria]

??? There was uncertainty this whole time and the economy didn't crash. Would only happen after an actual default.

No I’m talking about after the 5th. The case wouldn’t have made its way through the system before June 5th, that’s when the uncertainty would kick in.

And as someone who relies on the feds I’d really not have that uncertainty about where my money is or when I’d get to eat.

It’s easy to be a revolutionary when you don’t have anything to worry about

While the case is happening Biden simply continues to ignore the ceiling. The congressionally mandated budget is enacted and everything continues as normal.

Your assumption about me is incorrect.

[Thermodolia]

No I’m talking about after the 5th. The case wouldn’t have made its way through the system before June 5th, that’s when the uncertainty would kick in.

And as someone who relies on the feds I’d really not have that uncertainty about where my money is or when I’d get to eat.

It’s easy to be a revolutionary when you don’t have anything to worry about

While the case is happening Biden simply continues to ignore the ceiling. The congressionally mandated budget is enacted and everything continues as normal.

Apparently you’ve never heard of a stay or an injunction. The court will issue those against Biden. That causes uncertainty and fucks people over.

Clearly you’re ok with people dying

Your assumption about me is incorrect.

No my assumption is correct, you have no clue what the ever living fuck you are talking about. The court has been limiting the power of the executive not increasing. They’d bitch slap Biden.

And then we are fucked and I’m out of a home and starving

[Umeria]

While the case is happening Biden simply continues to ignore the ceiling. The congressionally mandated budget is enacted and everything continues as normal.

Apparently you’ve never heard of a stay or an injunction. The court will issue those against Biden. That causes uncertainty and fucks people over.

Clearly you’re ok with people dying

Your assumption about me is incorrect.

No my assumption is correct, you have no clue what the ever living fuck you are talking about. The court has been limiting the power of the executive not increasing. They’d bitch slap Biden.

And then we are fucked and I’m out of a home and starving

They wouldn't do that for the same reason they wouldn't outright rule against him. Imploding the economy is as bad for their benefactors as it is for everyone else.

You seem to be arguing with an alternate version of me that's okay with the economy crashing. I'm not okay with it, I'm saying there's no chance of it happening.

[Thermodolia]

Apparently you’ve never heard of a stay or an injunction. The court will issue those against Biden. That causes uncertainty and fucks people over.

Clearly you’re ok with people dying


No my assumption is correct, you have no clue what the ever living fuck you are talking about. The court has been limiting the power of the executive not increasing. They’d bitch slap Biden.

And then we are fucked and I’m out of a home and starving

They wouldn't do that for the same reason they wouldn't outright rule against him. Imploding the economy is as bad for their benefactors as it is for everyone else

You don’t know that. You are assuming way way too much.

You seem to be arguing with an alternate version of me that's okay with the economy crashing. I'm not okay with it, I'm saying there's no chance of it happening.

No you are saying that Biden should effectively crash the economy because the court might agree with him. That’s the reality of the proposal. Because again you are assuming that the court will side with Biden and not do what the people who are actually experts on legal matters say it would do.

[Umeria]

They wouldn't do that for the same reason they wouldn't outright rule against him. Imploding the economy is as bad for their benefactors as it is for everyone else

You don’t know that. You are assuming way way too much.

You seem to be arguing with an alternate version of me that's okay with the economy crashing. I'm not okay with it, I'm saying there's no chance of it happening.

No you are saying that Biden should effectively crash the economy because the court might agree with him. That’s the reality of the proposal. Because again you are assuming that the court will side with Biden and not do what the people who are actually experts on legal matters say it would do.

I am very clearly not saying Biden should crash the economy. A prediction of X not happening is not saying X should happen.

What legal experts are saying the court would rule against Biden? Please link

[Elwher]

You don’t know that. You are assuming way way too much.


No you are saying that Biden should effectively crash the economy because the court might agree with him. That’s the reality of the proposal. Because again you are assuming that the court will side with Biden and not do what the people who are actually experts on legal matters say it would do.

I am very clearly not saying Biden should crash the economy. A prediction of X not happening is not saying X should happen.

What legal experts are saying the court would rule against Biden? Please link

From Saikrishna Prakash, University of Virginia Law School:

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/17/neither-the-constitution-nor-common-sense-supports-the-argument-the-debt-ceiling-is-unconstitutional/

Michael McConnell, a professor at Stanford Law School:

“I don’t think it’s very complicated,” he said. “The president does not have authority to borrow money without authorization from Congress. Congress has authorized borrowing up to a certain point. He has no power to borrow beyond that point. The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with it.”

[Eternal Algerstonia]

i think american society would learn to be tougher and stronger if the united states of america defaulted, let darwin do his work

[Umeria]

I am very clearly not saying Biden should crash the economy. A prediction of X not happening is not saying X should happen.

What legal experts are saying the court would rule against Biden? Please link

From Saikrishna Prakash, University of Virginia Law School:

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/17/neither-the-constitution-nor-common-sense-supports-the-argument-the-debt-ceiling-is-unconstitutional/

Michael McConnell, a professor at Stanford Law School:

“I don’t think it’s very complicated,” he said. “The president does not have authority to borrow money without authorization from Congress. Congress has authorized borrowing up to a certain point. He has no power to borrow beyond that point. The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with it.”

Both of these are about the issue itself, not what the Supreme Court would decide on it.

Also what does McConnell think the president can do that wouldn't go against Congress? They've mandated the spending as well the limit, so following the limit would also go against their authority.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

I am very clearly not saying Biden should crash the economy. A prediction of X not happening is not saying X should happen.

What legal experts are saying the court would rule against Biden? Please link

From Saikrishna Prakash, University of Virginia Law School:

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/17/neither-the-constitution-nor-common-sense-supports-the-argument-the-debt-ceiling-is-unconstitutional/

Michael McConnell, a professor at Stanford Law School:

“I don’t think it’s very complicated,” he said. “The president does not have authority to borrow money without authorization from Congress. Congress has authorized borrowing up to a certain point. He has no power to borrow beyond that point. The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with it.”

Yeah, but clearly McConnell has ulterior motives! He even has the same surname as the turtle!

[Pizza Friday Forever91]

I am very clearly not saying Biden should crash the economy. A prediction of X not happening is not saying X should happen.

What legal experts are saying the court would rule against Biden? Please link

From Saikrishna Prakash, University of Virginia Law School:

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/17/neither-the-constitution-nor-common-sense-supports-the-argument-the-debt-ceiling-is-unconstitutional/

Michael McConnell, a professor at Stanford Law School:

“I don’t think it’s very complicated,” he said. “The president does not have authority to borrow money without authorization from Congress. Congress has authorized borrowing up to a certain point. He has no power to borrow beyond that point. The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with it.”

Why should I listen to a former bush judicial appointee?

[San Lumen]

From Saikrishna Prakash, University of Virginia Law School:

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/17/neither-the-constitution-nor-common-sense-supports-the-argument-the-debt-ceiling-is-unconstitutional/

Michael McConnell, a professor at Stanford Law School:

“I don’t think it’s very complicated,” he said. “The president does not have authority to borrow money without authorization from Congress. Congress has authorized borrowing up to a certain point. He has no power to borrow beyond that point. The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with it.”

Why should I listen to a former bush judicial appointee?

Are you a legal or constitutional scholar?

[Cannot think of a name]

From Saikrishna Prakash, University of Virginia Law School:

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/17/neither-the-constitution-nor-common-sense-supports-the-argument-the-debt-ceiling-is-unconstitutional/

Michael McConnell, a professor at Stanford Law School:

“I don’t think it’s very complicated,” he said. “The president does not have authority to borrow money without authorization from Congress. Congress has authorized borrowing up to a certain point. He has no power to borrow beyond that point. The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with it.”

Why should I listen to a former bush judicial appointee?

I think because whether he's right or wrong, trying to do so would prolong the very thing they're trying to cut short as it works its way through courts to decide. And would likely end up in a not friendly Supreme Court, though maybe I'm wrong about that.

[Valrifall]

Why should I listen to a former bush judicial appointee?

Are you a legal or constitutional scholar?

How hard could it be to be a constitutional scholar, it's a one page document!

[San Lumen]

https://apnews.com/article/elections-ne ... 4458a807b4

Nevada becomes latest to enhance penalties for election worker intimidation after statewide exodus

[Umeria]

Why should I listen to a former bush judicial appointee?

I think because whether he's right or wrong, trying to do so would prolong the very thing they're trying to cut short as it works its way through courts to decide. And would likely end up in a not friendly Supreme Court, though maybe I'm wrong about that.

If Biden invokes the 14th, the Supreme Court doesn't have any choice but to be friendly. They lose a lot more from the economy imploding than they do from the GOP not getting minor budget concessions.

[San Lumen]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/31/politics ... ran-milley

Trump captured on tape talking about classified document he kept after leaving the White House

[Thermodolia]

I think because whether he's right or wrong, trying to do so would prolong the very thing they're trying to cut short as it works its way through courts to decide. And would likely end up in a not friendly Supreme Court, though maybe I'm wrong about that.

If Biden invokes the 14th, the Supreme Court doesn't have any choice but to be friendly. They lose a lot more from the economy imploding than they do from the GOP not getting minor budget concessions.

What exactly do they lose? So far you’ve just claimed they’d lose but you haven’t shown anything.

Besides there’s mountains of evidence and legal opinions that show the court would most likely rule against Biden.

This is just copium

[Cannot think of a name]

I think because whether he's right or wrong, trying to do so would prolong the very thing they're trying to cut short as it works its way through courts to decide. And would likely end up in a not friendly Supreme Court, though maybe I'm wrong about that.

If Biden invokes the 14th, the Supreme Court doesn't have any choice but to be friendly. They lose a lot more from the economy imploding than they do from the GOP not getting minor budget concessions.

Whether you're right or wrong, the fight undermines the goal. It will drag out until they get to decide. And if they roll those dice anyway and it doesn't come up their way, they blew their shot. At best now's not the time.

[Thermodolia]

In other news 29 republicans voted against advancing the deal to the final vote. 52 democrats joined all other republicans to pass the procedural vote.

Looks like the deal will pass the House but McCarthy is definitely in danger of losing his speakership

[Umeria]

If Biden invokes the 14th, the Supreme Court doesn't have any choice but to be friendly. They lose a lot more from the economy imploding than they do from the GOP not getting minor budget concessions.

What exactly do they lose? So far you’ve just claimed they’d lose but you haven’t shown anything.

Besides there’s mountains of evidence and legal opinions that show the court would most likely rule against Biden.

This is just copium

Rich people are very invested in the stock market. Cons in the Supreme Court are friends with and do the bidding of rich people, they might even have big stock portfolios themselves. Think Harlan Crow.

What evidence? Where is it?

[Cannot think of a name]

In other news 29 republicans voted against advancing the deal to the final vote. 52 democrats joined all other republicans to pass the procedural vote.

Looks like the deal will pass the House but McCarthy is definitely in danger of losing his speakership

Another series of speaker votes that don't end in a speaker? That was pretty entertaining.

[Thermodolia]

In other news 29 republicans voted against advancing the deal to the final vote. 52 democrats joined all other republicans to pass the procedural vote.

Looks like the deal will pass the House but McCarthy is definitely in danger of losing his speakership

Another series of speaker votes that don't end in a speaker? That was pretty entertaining.

Or a speaker that has to rely on democrats for support

[Tarsonis]

From Saikrishna Prakash, University of Virginia Law School:

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/17/neither-the-constitution-nor-common-sense-supports-the-argument-the-debt-ceiling-is-unconstitutional/

Michael McConnell, a professor at Stanford Law School:

“I don’t think it’s very complicated,” he said. “The president does not have authority to borrow money without authorization from Congress. Congress has authorized borrowing up to a certain point. He has no power to borrow beyond that point. The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with it.”

Why should I listen to a former bush judicial appointee?

That's a sad excuse for a retort