[pfooti]

Yeah, I think the actual underpinning support that broke this time is recission. In the past, of congress passed a budget with money for the some department or line item, that money would be spent. Now the president has claimed that he doesn't have to spend money he had been directed to spend by finding bills, and (importantly) the supreme court has upheld this stance.

This means that there is no longer the ability to negotiate a budget in good faith. The Dems can fight for more health care funding (or whatever) and the compromise can happen, and then the president can just say "sike!" And not do it.

And, political leanings aside, this president has shown that he will indeed break any agreement he decides to, so there doesn't seem to be any reason to negotiate. So I'm thinking this shutdown lasts a Long time.

[bee_rider]

Yeah, that seems like a pretty major problem. It isn’t even clear really how negotiations should start, without any ability to make binding deals.

[mindslight]

Impeachment. Negotiations should start with impeachment. The President is not faithfully executing the laws passed by Congress, and the Supplicating Council has decreed that the only remedy is impeachment. It's time to impeach and convict.

[ethbr1]

> and (importantly) the supreme court has upheld this stance

Caveat: on a preliminary basis in most of the decisions

Important to differentiate SCOTUS saying "there isn't a compelling reason to block this power before we decide" and "here's our decision about the legality of this power"

Rough summary of current state: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/after-courts-hampered-...

I'm half-curious if Roberts is playing for time to avoid a constitutional crisis, figuring it's better to cede a temporary power (and avoid the executive stuffing the bench or whatever insane shit they'd try) than to cast it in case law. Not great for the rule of law, but I can see the realpolitik (which Marbury v. Madison shows has always been a consideration for inter-branch squabbles)

[pfooti]

I presume that the court knows what it is doing, which is playing a partisan game. Last administration it invented a whole new legal doctrine (major questions) to fabricate a way to block the biden agenda, this administration it is doing its best to give the trump administration a huge amount of power _without_ ceding that power indefinitely to the next administration via precedent.

[locopati]

The Roberts courts is in on this. They know Trump won't last forever and when he's gone, they get Vance to carry on with their Dominionist project. People need to stop thinking that the branches are playing realpolitik games... the various Republicans are either all in on Christofascism or they're fooling themselves that they're not, or they're too spineless to fight back.

[o11c]

Frankly, it's time to look into seeing how recall elections work in various states.

"Our legally elected representative directly refuses to represent us" should be plenty of grounds.

[aidenn0]

Recalling congressional representatives is probably not allowed. AFAICT, however, there has never been a federal court ruling on the (likely) exclusive right of congress to expel members.

The closest I could find was Burton v. U.S., where the court declined to rule, since the law in question didn't apply to senators at the time.

[greedo]

The Constitution forbids states from recalling Congressional representatives.

[euroderf]

> Now the president has claimed that he doesn't have to spend money he had been directed to spend by finding bills, and (importantly) the supreme court has upheld this stance.

So this means the Supreme Court has unilaterally implemented the line item veto ? So much for "balls and strikes" eh.