“Hard Cases Make Bad Law”

The key to this part of the question is that it's not a legal or constitutional question *at all*. The current court is thoroughly corrupt, recognizing only it's political and ideological goals and self-interest. So any real discussion of the legal or constitutional merits ... https://t.co/G1BKGRhQFA

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) May 20, 2023

3/ global economic case just to pursue its partisan agenda.

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) May 20, 2023

Yes, but...

I’m not a lawyer but I’ve talked to a lot of them over the years. There is a good legal argument for the 14th Amendment and maybe even for the coin. 

But the question is not how Justice Tribe would rule, it is how this court would rule. I have little faith in them.

— Jason Furman (@jasonfurman) May 19, 2023

So either option would be risking failed auctions (for new debt or rollovers), markets crashing, recession & worse—in some respects would be less bad than prioritization but in other respects worse. (A failed auction would leave a huge cash crunch & even larger spending cuts.)

— Jason Furman (@jasonfurman) May 19, 2023

P.S. There are cases where I would recommend the President go ahead with something that was reasonably likely constitutional even if I would expect the Supreme Court to rule otherwise. This is not one of those cases.

— Jason Furman (@jasonfurman) May 19, 2023

The 14th is only an option if the U.S. is already in default but won’t officially admit it (we’ve actually been there before; probably will be again. Nothing irrevocable ever happens at the stroke of midnight. In fact, I’d be surprised if the true result isn’t a government shutdown first.) If the case got to the Supremes, the chaos would have already happened, the irrevocable damage would have been done (because any assurance of a resolution would be shattered and any good faith extended on hope of a resolution would begin to fade.)

I also think Furman is right: the Court would dump this back on Congress and the President, declining to take the responsibility away from them. After all, deciding otherwise would make the Court a super-legislature usurping Congressional authority to allocate government funds is a usurpation of Art. I powers by an Art. III entity.

I don’t even want the Warren Court doing that.

And then what? The 14th Amendment is not going to save us. I agree the Court is corrupt. I don’t agree that enters into the analysis. The issue is responsibility, and that falls on the Congress. Even the President can’t raise the debt ceiling. He can only veto or sign what Congress passes. He has some responsibility; but the final responsibility rests on Capitol Hill.

And it still only takes 5 House Republicans to end this nonsense.