obviously they don't feel the same way if the last 24 horus are any indication.....anyway, Again....they would have to sue to force the government into default in this scenario - what is the upside in this for them? They would probably lose (despite our good buddy stupidmoniker's cool, unsubstantiated claims to the contrary) and the theater of them openly paying lawyers to attempt to declaer the UST insolvent for political "gain" is so bad it's not even worht discussing.
It removes the responsibility from them to be on record as voting for an increase in the Debt Ceiling. Its pretty much the same as McConnell's proposal without the need to vote in the first place.
Yeah it's great and "pretty much the same" ....except that it forces them to attempt to sue the federal government into bankruptcy. Untenable, and despite stupidmoniker's entreaties, unlikely to be successful.
I don't disagree with anything in your post really but I do quibble on the quoted point. Will you feel the same way if a deal can't be reached, maybe ever, by the current Congress and default is triggered? Will you still believe it was a good idea to take it off the table entirely? I think Obama and Carney could have used artful language to accomplish all you suggested in your post without closing this door forever.
More to Juan: Couldn't they have rather said something like, "The legal consequences are uncertain and the president has no intention of even looking at this option while there is any chance of a bipartisan deal, a thing he has been working tirelessly toward since the issue arose. There is no desire at this time to even consider unilateral action with uncertain legal consequences and the president remains very confident that a bipartisan deal can be reached. But with an issue with such serious consequences, we can't definitively rule out any possibility, even one we would not even consider now, if the deadline passes and the economy is thrown into crisis."
If Congress did take it to the Supreme Court, I think they'd win. I don't get the rationale that the Constitution allows Obama to do this. But, that doesn't matter because they don't have to sue. They can let Obama get away with it. (The precedent might even be handy for their new Republican president.) They just need it for the coming election campaigning. "Obama unilaterally and unconstitutionally usurped powers reserved for Congress so he can avoid negotiations with fair-minded conserveratives and push his radical left-wing agenda to tax-and-spend hardworking Americans into slavery." I don't expect Republicans to publicly embrace this move. Rhetorically, they'll need everyone to know this is an unlawful usurpation of power. They don't want anyone reproaching them later for being appeasers or collaborators in Obama's putsch.
It only forces them to sue if they want to stop Obama. If they just want to complain about runaway debt and Obama usurping power, no lawsuit is necessary.
I get your point Juan, and it's well made. But again, if it comes to it, given a choice between default and the 14th, will you still feel it was a smart move to take the option off the table so definitively? I tend to think Obama would be willing to sacrifice a second term (and I think that's far from a sure thing even if he did invoke) in order to save the nation from utter catastrophe. Unfortunately, in my eyes at least, he's preemptively robbed himself of what may turn out to be the only alternative to default.
I suppose they could have. But, as I had expressed in my very first post in this thread, I think this would actually be the worst of all possible outcomes (for the Democrats, and possibly by extension the country). Perhaps it's like a bout of domestic violence -- when you slap your wife, you've lost the argument. Since I think it's the worst possible scenario, of course I'd kill it if I could.
Is there any reason he couldn't just come out next week and say "I changed my mind?" I don't think denials in Washington, no matter how firm, mean anything. After all, this would only be relevant if no debt deal passes, which all 4 House/Senate leaders say will never happen.
Of course he could do that, but he will have badly handicapped himself if he does. That's the part I don't understand. I am imagining the commercials that begin with Carney saying, 'the president has no legal authority to do this,' followed by Obama saying, 'I am doing this.' Why give them that quote?
I agree that he could have finessed the issue in a way that would have left it at least in the background as an option. I don't get the strategy. Of course, I have never understood why he gave into Republican blackmail over the "temporary" Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy. As I said in another thread, he's been back on his heels ever since when dealing with the Republicans. I'm honestly perplexed with his political performance over the last several months.
Does anyone know if Boehners latest proposal is that a BBA will be passed by the House as part of the vote for the BBA or that it a vote for a BBA will be brought up at some point between now and when the Debt Limit is revisted? The Constitution says that two thirds of the House and Senate must vote to approve a BBA so how can Boehner attach this as a rider and expect it to get passed if almost no Democrats vote for it?
I didn't agree with him extending Bush's tax cuts but considering everything he got (budget passed, Don't ask Don't tell repealed, extended unemployment benefits) it looks like he got a lot for that. Regarding whether he should or shouldn't invoke the 14th. I don't fully understand it but given he was a Constitutional law professor I think I am going to defer on criticizing him for it.
I know you hate the "both sides do it" argument but have you considered the possibility that Obama may be looking at default as benefiting him politically? I admit this is very speculative and there isn't much in Obama's presidency that indicates he would do that but given that Clinton came out politically stronger than the Republican Congress after the government shutdown perhaps Obama is considering that. He might be looking at the situation as that he believes Congress will come to some solution before we actually default and that there is some fudge factor on when the US actually defaults. A default brought about by inaction in Congress, especially with Boehner flailing to get his own party in line, strengthen's Obama's hand in dealing with Congress and putting up with this might help to break the resistance Obama is encountering.
Awesome. Now, having wasted most of the week passing a thing that they knew and that the Senate and the WH have promised would never become law, maybe they can start working on a solution that is not purely political. Dicks.
it's process. a broken, completely ****ed up process, and one that's had zero executive direction, but a process nonetheless. we'll deal with the result, and begin to fix the process in November 2012.