The Johnson - Schumer Congress Thread

[Gorsameth]

The Executive is a co-equal branch with the Judiciary. If there are questions of constitutionality, those questions go to the courts and, usually, the issue in question is placed on hold while the case works its way through.



Their job isn't to consider the economic ramifications of such a move. Their job would be to take the legal question - whether the 14th Amendment's text regarding the US debt makes the existence of a debt ceiling itself unconstitutional - and rule on that.



I mean, the way your posts read you basically just want a liberal/leftist version of Trump. Which isn't exactly great for democracy either?

- - - Updated - - -



This is accurate. During the Obama years Republicans still largely shouldered the blame for their games with the debt ceiling, and especially under Trump since it was literally just Republicans arguing with Republicans.

Whether that would continue to hold true isn't a surefire thing. It's likely, but the landscape has changed even from the last time this happened under Trump.

Sure the SC is there to consider the legal question but you can not ignore that the notion of causing an actual major economic crisis by putting a stay in place while they spend weeks/months on the case would weigh heavily on their mind.

A stay is one thing if your talking about temporary inconvenience but as has been said, you don't just undo a default. The irreparable damage of a stay, and therefor forced default, compared to just punting the debt ceiling forward until they give a verdict would, to my laymen mind, make it completely unreasonable to issue a stay.

[Edge-]

Sure the SC is there to consider the legal question but you can not ignore that the notion of causing an actual major economic crisis by putting a stay in place while they spend weeks/months on the case would weigh heavily on their mind.

It could go to the shadow docket for a quick ruling, which I hate that the shadow docket exists. It could go straight to the SCOTUS for a proper expedited hearing I believe, too, though that would absolutely be well beyond the June 5 current deadline.

This is a legislative problem for the legislature to solve. The courts are not designed to come in and save the country from a legislature that can't work because one party refuses to compromise and is willing to let the US default on its obligations.

[Gorsameth]

It could go to the shadow docket for a quick ruling, which I hate that the shadow docket exists. It could go straight to the SCOTUS for a proper expedited hearing I believe, too, though that would absolutely be well beyond the June 5 current deadline.

This is a legislative problem for the legislature to solve. The courts are not designed to come in and save the country from a legislature that can't work because one party refuses to compromise and is willing to let the US default on its obligations.

Its a legislative problem to solve when they confirm a budget, which by its very nature also includes how much the deficit is and therefor how much debt would need to be issued during the term of the budget to cover said budget.

The existence of the debt ceiling and its constitutional legality is a judicial issue. One of the purposes of the SC is to rule on the application of the constitution.

[Edge-]

https://newrepublic.com/post/173162/...biden-accurate

Speaking on Fox News Thursday morning, Senator Chuck Grassley said that Republicans are only interested in making sure the FBI complies with the investigation. “We aren’t interested in whether or not the accusations against Vice President Biden are accurate or not,” he said.

Once again Republicans admit that they hate reality and don't care about it, and prefer their fictions and fantasies over it.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1664266742128885761

FOX: How damning is this document for Biden?

GRASSLEY: I, I dont know that

FOX: But you've read it

GRASSLEY: Let's put it this way, there are accusations in it

Really hard to feel bad for Republican voters suffering as a result of Republican policies when they keep sending folks like this to Congress.

- - - Updated - - -

Its a legislative problem to solve when they confirm a budget, which by its very nature also includes how much the deficit is and therefor how much debt would need to be issued during the term of the budget to cover said budget.

The existence of the debt ceiling and its constitutional legality is a judicial issue. One of the purposes of the SC is to rule on the application of the constitution.

Then let it be taken up with the SCOTUS. Using the current Republican-manufactured crisis as the grounds to try to rush it through is silly and was never going to happen.

The Supreme Court rules on cases before it, and if there is no case brought before them to consider taking up they cannot issue a ruling. Again, I'm all for taking this issue up still. But trying to do it at the last second, which would have likely resulted in the debt ceiling being hit while the court considered the case and/or heard arguments, isn't a preferable outcome to the current flawed agreement.

[Paranoid Android]

The Executive is a co-equal branch with the Judiciary. If there are questions of constitutionality, those questions go to the courts and, usually, the issue in question is placed on hold while the case works its way through.



Their job isn't to consider the economic ramifications of such a move. Their job would be to take the legal question - whether the 14th Amendment's text regarding the US debt makes the existence of a debt ceiling itself unconstitutional - and rule on that.

Wait we saying the courts are not political? Plus once more the courts are not letting us default while this runs through the courts until they make a ruling. I will go a step further and say they wouldn't kill Biden's move, being involved in crashing the US and the world. I might be wrong here.

I mean, the way your posts read you basically just want a liberal/leftist version of Trump. Which isn't exactly great for democracy either?

Define this better please? If you mean a person with some Ballz (figuratively) Yes! I have from day 1 described the Dems here as the party that does nothing and just waits until the Republicans eff up so much then the only choice is to vote for Dems.

I will repeat that Dems only 'victories' were on things not being cut. At least get Trump tax cuts or some revenue program. I'm not a brilliant economist, but I know that bringing in money helps pay down the debt ceiling.

[Endus]

Define this better please? If you mean a person with some Ballz (figuratively) Yes! I have from day 1 described the Dems here as the party that does nothing and just waits until the Republicans eff up so much then the only choice is to vote for Dems.

I will repeat that Dems only 'victories' were on things not being cut. At least get Trump tax cuts or some revenue program. I'm not a brilliant economist, but I know that bringing in money helps pay down the debt ceiling.

In short, demagoguery wins elections, not policy, and the Democrats are traditionally terrible at demagoguery, thinking it beneath them.

But it doesn't have to be. Demagoguery gets a bad name because it appeals to emotion rather than reason, but this is only really a negative if you're using it as a tool because you can't rationally defend your stance, as is the case with most right-wing stances on issues today in particular. If you can justify your position rationally and use emotional appeals to sell it to the masses, that's the best of both worlds. The appeal to people's emotions and desires isn't dishonest, then; you have entirely justifiable reasons for wanting them to side with you on this, but it's a lot easier to sell it to people by making it personally desirable than just rationally explainable, especially since it's so much faster to appeal to emotions.

It's like the difference between a 300 page scientific paper explaining a new breakthrough discovery, and a 10 minute TED talk on the same science that gets a billion views and charges up society with the potential for this new tech. If the discovery is real, and the TED talk isn't bullshitting people with hyperbole, they're both good. The paper speaks to those who need to see the details, the talk speaks to those who want to be inspired but won't ever check the details. You can't just rely on one of the other. Relying on the academic paper and not the speechifying means nobody cares and your discovery goes unremarked; this is largely why fuck-all got done with regards to climate change for decades, and even now is barely creeping along to half-ass a response. Relying on the speech and not the science is how you get bullshit like anti-vaxxers.

Democrats need demagogues. Biden's okay at it. Obama was better, but absolutely useless at efficacy if we're gonna be honest. AOC may be a strong contender but is still young enough she's not taken seriously (unfairly). But seriously, most Democrats are boring as fuck and really don't know how to talk to people that well. Shockingly. It doesn't matter how good or necessary your policies and politics are if you can't sell them to the only audience that matters.

[Gorsameth]

Then let it be taken up with the SCOTUS. Using the current Republican-manufactured crisis as the grounds to try to rush it through is silly and was never going to happen.

The Supreme Court rules on cases before it, and if there is no case brought before them to consider taking up they cannot issue a ruling. Again, I'm all for taking this issue up still. But trying to do it at the last second, which would have likely resulted in the debt ceiling being hit while the court considered the case and/or heard arguments, isn't a preferable outcome to the current flawed agreement.

I agree this should be taken care of at any point. But that just brings us back to the question, that I think neither of can answer, of "Can this be brought before the SC in the first place". The US legal system doesn't allow you to simply ask the SC a question. There has to be a party with standing, which may not exist until the very thing we don't want to happen, happens.

[D Luniz]

My memory may be fading in my older age, but if it serves me well, Republicans are typically the ones that suffer when they hold the debt ceiling hostage. Democrats in the past have threatened to not raise the debt ceiling(I think Biden and/or Obama called for them during their Senate days), but they've been adult enough to realize it's not a winning battle.

Republicans keep trying to win it and lose on it every time, so far.

yes, previous government shutdowns hurt the GOP

but that was before the GOP morphed into a full on cult. Now, I'm not so sure the outcome

[Edge-]

I agree this should be taken care of at any point. But that just brings us back to the question, that I think neither of can answer, of "Can this be brought before the SC in the first place". The US legal system doesn't allow you to simply ask the SC a question. There has to be a party with standing, which may not exist until the very thing we don't want to happen, happens.

Yes. I believe the Biden administration would have the standing to challenge this. I'm sure it wouldn't be easy, but that would be the route to pursue, I'd imagine.

[masterhorus8]

https://newrepublic.com/post/173162/...biden-accurate



Once again Republicans admit that they hate reality and don't care about it, and prefer their fictions and fantasies over it.

"Vice President Biden"

Nice...

[Edge-]

"Vice President Biden"

Nice...

Continuing to promote the Big Lie is really good for fundraising and plays well with extremist supporters. He's too old to be angering them, if he accidentally admits that Biden is the lawful US president he might have to like, run from them and his running days are long gone.

I'm only half joking because there has been years of reporting on how many Republicans are actually scared of their own voters extremism.

[Milchshake]

In short, demagoguery wins elections, not policy, and the Democrats are traditionally terrible at demagoguery, thinking it beneath them.

Lol no. Democrats avoid Demgoguery becuse it does not appeal to the base of the party. Because the base of the party and many of the party factions have long been the victims of Demagoguery.

[Benggaul]

Apparently Boebert missed the vote and was running up the steps just as it happened. I didn't see what the final tally was so no idea if her vote would have made any difference, but considering she was one of the vocal detractors of the deal I find it funny she couldn't be bothered to show up on time.

[DarkTZeratul]

I didn't see what the final tally was so no idea if her vote would have made any difference

It wouldn't have.

[Breccia]

I didn't see what the final tally was

It wouldn't have.

Indeed. Short version: 300-plus to "who carees"

Long version:

A majority of each party's members — 149 Republicans and 165 Democrats — voted to pass the bill. Seventy-one Republicans and 46 Democrats voted against it. Four members did not vote.

So nobody's getting fired or impeached for this. It's as moderate as the current reality allows.

[Benggaul]

Indeed. Short version: 300-plus to "who carees"

Long version:



So nobody's getting fired or impeached for this. It's as moderate as the current reality allows.

Yeah, I assumed as much because as much as the GOP as a whole wants to bluster and threaten the majority of the ones in Congress right now knew it would be suicide for them not to pass it. I just thought it amusing picturing Boebert scrambling up the steps thinking her symbolic vote against was so vital. Going to be fun watching the likes of her and Greene shrieking to the other GOP about it all for a while at any rate.

[Endus]

Lol no. Democrats avoid Demgoguery becuse it does not appeal to the base of the party. Because the base of the party and many of the party factions have long been the victims of Demagoguery.

And that's leaving them royally fucked at the national level, unable to outperform clown-shoes cryptofascists who struggle to maintain any grasp on reality. It's embarrassing.

If you dont know how to connect with voters, you may be good at governing, but you're shit at politics.

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/RepMTG/status/1664102029516587008

Speaker Greene is apparently giving fucking John Solomon (Ukraine conspiracy guy from The Hill) and Julie Kelly (AM greatness writer) and one additional outlet "unfettered access" to all the Jan. 6 tapes.

You know, the ones that Tucker's crew got a hold of then released like 2 minutes from and then we never heard about them again?

Anyways, in response to conservative superstar Cat Turd's request that she deliver on promises to make the footage all public she had this to say -

I would love for everyone to be able to see the J6 tapes except the funded Antifa internet trolls that can’t wait to comb through every ounce of video with facial recognition software in order to doxx every person that simply stood on the Capitol grounds that day so they can ruin their lives and the FBI can raid their homes in the middle of the night and the DOJ can persecute them mercilessly.

Truly delusional, astoundingly, breatakingly stupid and dishonest people.

[VMSmith]

And that's leaving them royally fucked at the national level, unable to outperform clown-shoes cryptofascists who struggle to maintain any grasp on reality. It's embarrassing.

If you dont know how to connect with voters, you may be good at governing, but you're shit at politics.

"When they go low, we go high" may be the stupidest, most self-defeating political statement ever uttered, despite how nice it might feel.

[Endus]

"When they go low, we go high" may be the stupidest, most self-defeating political statement ever uttered, despite how nice it might feel.

The problem with it is the public just sees you getting punched in the nads and smeared, and you smiling and taking it. That's not the "high road". That's a person too weak to fight back getting bullied. By all means, don't go for the crotch shot or eye gouges, but fuckin' fight back. And end the fight, when and where you can, by knocking your opponent the fuck out.

Turning the other cheek only works if you're strong enough to take the hits and make a mockery of the slapping. And let's recall; the same guy who suggested that was the same guy who spent an afternoon braiding a whip to beat the everloving fuck out of some bankers in the temple for being shitheads.