|
Clarste posted:Constitutionally, the Supreme Court has no power whatsoever over anything, which seems like a little bit of an oversight so way back when they gave themselves the power to interpret existing law (in this case the 14th Amendment I guess). This is the correct interpretation. There is no meaningful power granted to the Supreme Court that would prevent Biden from minting the coin or invoking the 14th amendment. And for those that disagree, take that up with Lincoln, who set the precedent already.
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:41 |
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:This is the correct interpretation. There is no meaningful power granted to the Supreme Court that would prevent Biden from minting the coin or invoking the 14th amendment. Who would have standing if Biden minted the coin and someone wanted to say that was unconstitutional?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 23:29
|
|
|
Anyone the Supreme Court wants to have standing. Originalism.jpg
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 23:30
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Anyone the Supreme Court wants to have standing. Originalism.jpg "Your honor, my client was set to become the Warlord of Escanaba after the default, and the unconstitutional actions of the Biden administration deprived him of his demense."
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 23:42
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Anyone the Supreme Court wants to have standing. Originalism.jpg The best thing about originalism is the Supreme Court should have absolutely no power, given both the text of the constitution and intent of many of the founding fathers.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 23:59
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:The best thing about originalism is the Supreme Court should have absolutely no power, given both the text of the constitution and intent of many of the founding fathers. You've argued this before and it didn't make sense then and it doesn't now, you think the Founding Fathers meant to create a supreme court with absolutely no power? What would even be the point?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 00:12
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:You've argued this before and it didn't make sense then and it doesn't now, you think the Founding Fathers meant to create a supreme court with absolutely no power? What would even be the point? To settle disputes and controversies in certain types of cases in which they are vested original jurisdiction (such as cases between states) and to serve as the ultimate court of appeal. There's plenty for the Supreme Court to do that is specifically authorized by the Constitution beyond reviewing constitutionality via their self-granted authority.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 00:33
|
|
|
Pobrecito posted:To settle disputes and controversies in certain types of cases in which they are vested original jurisdiction (such as cases between states) and to serve as the ultimate court of appeal. There's plenty for the Supreme Court to do that is specifically authorized by the Constitution beyond reviewing constitutionality via their self-granted authority. How does one settle disputes and controversies with "absolutely no power"
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 00:36
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:How does one settle disputes and controversies with "absolutely no power" Probably because most people look at the usage of the word "power" and apply the context of "power to make laws like the legislators do", which the courts should not be able to do instead of trying to play verbal gotcha.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 00:48
|
|
|
Pobrecito posted:To settle disputes and controversies in certain types of cases in which they are vested original jurisdiction (such as cases between states) and to serve as the ultimate court of appeal. There's plenty for the Supreme Court to do that is specifically authorized by the Constitution beyond reviewing constitutionality via their self-granted authority. Like the last time it came up, in early April based on my download records, the idea that the early Supreme Court invented judicial review out of nothing is false. There were several state and even a few federal cases that included the idea that a court could review the constitutionality of a law. See here. This is not to even mention the idea that no judicial review would be incredibly dangerous. If Congress could just make a law and ignore any potential civil rights issue, then any kind of minority would only exist at their suffrance.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 00:51
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:How does one settle disputes and controversies with "absolutely no power" The way they do now, Decorum expects their rulings to be honored even though they have no power of enforcement.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 00:51
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:How does one settle disputes and controversies with "absolutely no power" The same way that any court of original jurisdiction does in our common law system.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 00:52
|
|
|
the_steve posted:Probably because most people look at the usage of the word "power" and apply the context of "power to make laws like the legislators do", which the courts should not be able to do instead of trying to play verbal gotcha. virtualboyCOLOR posted:“Per se” seems like it’s doing a lot of work here to me. virtualboyCOLOR posted:To be honest the argument that any of the judges, let alone the Supreme Court as a concept, is legitimate is hilariously foolish without needing to get into the Bush v Gore nonsense. The Supreme Court is granted zero power in the constitution to enforce and rulings and thus can be ignored. Then most people would be wrong, because this argument has been made by this poster before.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 01:03
|
|
|
FlapYoJacks posted:https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4024194-mccarthy-student-loan-payment-pause-gone-under-debt-ceiling-deal/ This was going to end this summer anyway after the court decides the fate of loan forgiveness in June, this is McCarthy trying to spin something that was going to happen anyway as a victory and Biden is letting him do it. Payments were supposed to resume 60 days after forgiveness and that changes to 60 days after the Supreme Court decides.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 01:10
|
|
|
Fell Fire posted:Like the last time it came up, in early April based on my download records, the idea that the early Supreme Court invented judicial review out of nothing is false. There were several state and even a few federal cases that included the idea that a court could review the constitutionality of a law. Pretty much. "By a strictly originalist view of the Constitution the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to rule laws as unconstitutional" is a joke line made up to troll originalists about the intrinsic absurdity of their philosophy, but somehow it morphed into people earnestly believing it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 01:10
|
|
|
It's very important that we entertain the same absurd rhetorical demands, from the same users, that derail discussion over and over again, for literal years. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 01:50
|
|
|
I think it's fair that people aren't super articulate in the way they express that the supreme court is pretty poo poo. Judicial review is essential to their functionality as "people what decide if law is okay" and all, but in practice they treat it like cops treat qualified immunity. They aren't acting in a way that can be described as "oversight" unless you mangle the definition of the word. So when someone is objecting to their supreme power of judicial review, they probably mean "legislation by unelected unimpeachable untouchable people who don't really even need to reach a consense of 9 people to gently caress up everything for everyone forever." Their own description of themselves is "the final arbiter of the law, [which is] charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also function[ing] as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution." Which I think most people would agree is underselling what they actually do. In some ways them being able to fabricate rights out of nothing is potentially good, but they have way too much power and way too little accountability, and even if you could make the argument that the constitution says they should -- then I would politely argue that the constitution is stupid and wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 02:26
|
|
|
They just call balls and strikes...right? John Roberts wouldn't lie, would he?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 02:32
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jimtankersley/status/1662963072116424705 Some rumors that the IRS is getting a 20b cut. This deal keeps getting worse.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 03:16
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:I think it's fair that people aren't super articulate in the way they express that the supreme court is pretty poo poo. Judicial review is essential to their functionality as "people what decide if law is okay" and all, but in practice they treat it like cops treat qualified immunity. They aren't acting in a way that can be described as "oversight" unless you mangle the definition of the word. So when someone is objecting to their supreme power of judicial review, they probably mean "legislation by unelected unimpeachable untouchable people who don't really even need to reach a consense of 9 people to gently caress up everything for everyone forever." There's plenty of checks on the Supreme Court's power. It's just that most of them are in the hands of our increasingly dysfunctional and gridlocked legislative branch. And in fact, the issues we're talking about today (the debt ceiling and student debt forgiveness) are things that are properly up to Congress to handle in the first place. The only reason we're talking about executive action at all is because of the legislative branch's failure to address these issues. But because the executive is kind of overstepping its constitutional role by taking on these issues unilaterally, it's not really surprising that it would bump up against resistance from the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 03:24
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:https://twitter.com/jimtankersley/status/1662963072116424705 one of the reasons today is annoying newswise is that it nails, with marksman accuracy, the time and space between scary headlines and having enough information we apparently don't know the numbers or timeline in the IRS thing, the dumbest and biggest (though not most harmful) element of the deal as currently publicly known, and yet we're gonna get mad about it because what other info do we have, apparently, than ""some rumors""
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 03:34
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There's plenty of checks on the Supreme Court's power. It's just that most of them are in the hands of our increasingly dysfunctional and gridlocked legislative branch. Are there any that are realistically feasible given our current reality? I'm not trying to be glib, I just don't think anything that exists would fly today. And I am aware that the congress is in theory the controller of the purse, congress is also useless aside from increasing their own pay. If we have an executive who isn't interested in making hard pushes foward, and we have a supreme court who is very interested in hard pushes backwards, who left to aim our ire at? Congress hasn't been effective since 2009, and even in that instance it was for like, a bright shining moment of "not good enough." So pointing invective at the people who are actually doing things seems perfectly normal to me. I suppose it might just be my perspective that stagnation is inehrently regressive since time only goes forward. You can't just be like "oh we already did civil rights and gay marriage and 40 hour work weeks" because as technology and resource allocation (theoretically) improves, those all eventually become not good enough. The whole debt ceiling is effectively a means to ensure that good things don't happen, and since the president doesn't want to get rid of it, congress can't manage to do anything, and the supremes are functionally the ones who will decide if anything ever actually does break, what is there to do besides point out that they probably shouldn't exist? We know that they will one day be a problem, so talking about it before it happens is just preparedness, no?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 03:39
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:one of the reasons today is annoying newswise is that it nails, with marksman accuracy, the time and space between scary headlines and having enough information
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 03:43
|
|
|
hot take: congress doesn't increase its own pay enough this is much much much more of a problem in state legislatures ofc, and I'm not just raising this because I might consider moving to new Hampshire and personally knocking on the door of each of my seven thousand constituents in the state lege
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 03:45
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:A lot of these rumors have proven true lately. and gossip posting from The Hill and various access reporters is, annoyingly, newsworthy I'm not saying it's unacceptable in the thread, I'm just a little pissed off at the current state of media consumption there was no way the last 48 hours wasn't going to send some people into a potentjally excusable rage
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 03:47
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:A lot of these rumors have proven true lately. According to the NYT, the IRS funding cut isn't actually in the bill. It's basically just a promise that they will start from the assumption that there will be $20 billion less over the next 10 years (So, the base assumption will be that the IRA bonus funding will be $60 billion instead of $80 billion) when they do the 2025 budget. https://twitter.com/jimtankersley/status/1662965542687219713
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 03:50
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:hot take: congress doesn't increase its own pay enough I'm sure that's probably true on the state level, but until states are better at increasing the state minimums it's a little hard to be too sad about that.  quote:there was no way the last 48 hours wasn't going to send some people into a potentjally excusable rage I think being someone who pays attention to politics and current events means you're probably angry all the time anyway. Or depressed and looking for validation, maybe. That's why we gather here together, though -- to get really angry and sad and hope that Avshalom finally eats trump with her monster vagina.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 03:52
|
|
|
There's still a chance that this deal might not even pass. Because Democrats get nothing from it, but Republicans also gave up 95% of their demands. There isn't even any official spending cuts besides the IRS bonus money being smaller. It basically doesn't do anything major, which is going to piss off Democrats who are just going to see it as taking a small loss for nothing and piss off Republicans because they feel like they blew their leverage and they are giving up their chance to negotiate the budget for the next two years. It might end up in a bizarro-world situation where most Republicans vote no and most Democrats vote yes because of the logic that this is the "best possible deal/smallest possible loss" scenario and it takes away budget negotiations from the House for 2 years.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 03:58
|
|
|
So after catching up on news, biden caved into terrorists demands and in this case is like you had a remote bomb on the terrorist head (amendment and coin) but roleplayed that there was no other solution and gave in, truly fascinating stuff, you can't make this up. Biden will go down as the most useless president before full fascism.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 04:13
|
|
|
I have to say, as a Big Biden Defender, I'm appalled that he ever negotiated on the debt limit. The whole Republican argument about "compromise" is such bullshit. Compromise about what? What are you giving us that we should give you anything? Not tanking the economy? By spending money on what Congress already allocated money for? I would have just not picked up the phone if the "negotiation" didn't begin and end at "clean debt limit bill." In 2019 and 2020 when they held the House, did Democrats ever make demands re raising the debt ceiling? Maybe I'm misremembering, but I don't recall any drama about it and I follow this stuff. Edit: clarified that Democrats held the House in 2019 and 2020. small butter fucked around with this message at 04:32 on May 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 04:25
|
|
|
small butter posted:In 2017 and 2018 when they were out of power, did Democrats ever make demands re raising the debt ceiling? Maybe I'm misremembering, but I don't recall any drama about it and I follow this stuff. Dems didn't control either house in 2017 or 2018. In 2019, there was a budget deal with the Democrats where they agreed to lift the debt ceiling as part of the budget. So, there was technically some negotiation over the debt limit when Dems took the House, but they never threatened a default if their budget demands weren't met. They basically threw it in as part of a sweetener to get Trump to sign their budget and for congressional Republicans to support it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 04:27
|
|
|
Why wasn't the debt ceiling passed when the Dems had the House last year?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 04:44
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Why wasn't the debt ceiling passed when the Dems had the House last year? Or why didn't they remove the debt ceiling that is unconstitutional? no one knows, I can't tell if malice or incompetence as this is exactly what was going to happen.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 04:45
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's very important that we entertain the same absurd rhetorical demands, from the same users, that derail discussion over and over again, for literal years. That's the hallmark of an open marketplace of ideas, full of rational actors!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 04:48
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Why wasn't the debt ceiling passed when the Dems had the House last year? They had a budget deal with Senate Republicans to set the FY23 budget for the entire year at higher spending levels before the new congress was sworn in (and preventing them from having to negotiate with the House for a year) and Republicans didn't want it included in the bill. Democrats could have used reconciliation afterwards to do it on their own, but Sinema and Manchin wanted to negotiate over it and Tester was opposed to voting to lift the debt ceiling on a party-line vote in an election year. Republicans also made a handshake deal that Democrats wouldn't do that as part of the budget deal and they decided to honor that because they wanted the budget deal and didn't think they wanted to negotiate within the party on a 9-day deadline. It seems like that budget deal ended up being retroactively valuable (but, nobody knew it at the time) because it means that this deal freezing spending at FY23 levels means they still effectively increased spending from what it would be otherwise without that budget deal. But, nobody really knows what two years of budget negotiations with the House would have resulted in. This debt deal is almost certainly better for overall spending levels than two years of budget negotiations with the House would be cumulatively. But, even though the SNAP changes apply to a pretty small amount of people, they likely wouldn't have happened as part of the normal budget negotiating process. It's hard to judge against a hypothetical situation, though. But, you have to compare the debt ceiling deal to what two years of budget negotiations would have looked like to determine if it was worth it. If you care about overall spending levels or you think they might have actually defaulted, then it probably was. If you think that the SNAP changes for single people 50-55 is setting a bad precedent and opening the door for actually major changes down the road or you think that they would have negotiated better budgets each year for the next two years, then it probably wasn't. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 05:24 on May 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 05:06
|
|
|
Clarste posted:Constitutionally, the Supreme Court has no power whatsoever over anything, which seems like a little bit of an oversight so way back when they gave themselves the power to interpret existing law (in this case the 14th Amendment I guess). The idea being that it's Congress's fault for writing ambiguous laws, and if they don't like it they can just change the law to specify what exactly they meant. Judicial review was discussed and understood by the framers to be implied by the Constitution. It is discussed at length in the Federalist papers for example. The idea that the Supreme Court made a mad power grab is ahistorical fanfic. Captain Oblivious fucked around with this message at 05:36 on May 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 05:32
|
|
|
It may have been implied but it's not actually in the Constitution (which is a pretty huge problem for a legal document!). So they formalized it as judicial precedent, which is how things work in a common law system. Anyway, the point was just that the Constitution grants no particular powers at all to the Supreme Court, other than to hear cases. Clarste fucked around with this message at 06:04 on May 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 06:00
|
|
|
If and when the debt ceiling bill gets passed and we avoid a default is there anything stopping Biden from then immediately invoking the 14th amendment to end this nonsense once and for all? The argument against using it right now is that it would end up in the supreme court and then we would default while they debate it and possibly strike it down. But if this were to happen after a debt ceiling bill is passed, then the supreme court could debate it without the danger of a default. I mean unless they debated it for a few years.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 06:03
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:If and when the debt ceiling bill gets passed and we avoid a default is there anything stopping Biden from then immediately invoking the 14th amendment to end this nonsense once and for all? The argument against using it right now is that it would end up in the supreme court and then we would default while they debate it and possibly strike it down. But if this were to happen after a debt ceiling bill is passed, then the supreme court could debate it without the danger of a default. I mean unless they debated it for a few years. That's what he says he is going to do before the next debt ceiling deadline rolls around: quote:President Biden on Sunday rejected the prospect of getting rid of the debt limit entirely, but he said he will look into how the 14th Amendment could be used during future debt ceiling fights after he and Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) brokered a deal to avoid a default. If he gets re-elected, it will get litigated in 2025. If he doesn't, then it probably gets forgotten until the next time there is a Democratic President and a Republican congress. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4024653-biden-says-hell-explore-14th-amendment-for-future-debt-limit-debates/
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 06:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:41 |
|
|
Charliegrs posted:If and when the debt ceiling bill gets passed and we avoid a default is there anything stopping Biden from then immediately invoking the 14th amendment to end this nonsense once and for all? The fact that he doesn't want to?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 06:13
|
|