Skip to main content

View Diary: Why The Debt Limit Fight Will Be A Political Face-Off With No Gimmicks Or Constitutional Crisis (208 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The short answer to a very complex question (6+ / 0-)

    is yes, this could be taken to Court. But he does not want to do that because it doesn't address the problem he wants to solve and that is ending Republican hostage taking. Remember, after this there is the continuing resolution and next year's appropriations bills.

    Further, affiant sayeth not.

    by Gary Norton on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 09:05:37 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you for your answer & great diary (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gary Norton, PeterHug, MichaelNY

      Fear is the Mind Killer...

      by boophus on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 09:17:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There is another aspect: the "live controversy" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The Supreme Court does not issue advisory opinions. It would be necessary for us to have reached and passed the debt ceiling, for the President to have taken some particular action, and for that action to be contested. Only THEN would the Court issue a ruling on the legality of the President's action in light of an apparent conflict between the laws. This would be a very, very risky step for either the Congress or the President to take. The Court's ruling would be final; it would benefit one side or the other and the losing side would lose big.

      •  There is a law, the Declaratory Judgement Act (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        under which Treasury could seek a ruling in District Court and if they loose get an expedited appeal to the DC Circuit. I doubt the Constitutional "case or controversy" requirement, referred to as standing, would present a bar. But, as I said, it's a lot more complex.

        Further, affiant sayeth not.

        by Gary Norton on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 01:22:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ah then... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gary Norton

          You are the one better versed in these things.

          Regardless however I'd maintain the second part of my argument which is that it would represent a huge risk and there is, as far as I can discern, no compelling reason why either side would want to take that risk...unless of course one of those sides is simply crazy.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site