Is there a point when the Supreme Court has to / will step into the shutdown / debt ceiling fiasco?

[barnabas63]

Anyone have any ideas? Something's gotta give.

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. hmm...wouldn't be surprised if it was Scalia waving that confed flag at the "rally"

[barnabas63]

4. Of course...lol

[Wounded Bear]

2. Maybe when they don't get paid?

JK. Don't think they have any authority over budget matters.

[Nye Bevan]

3. Generally, the Supreme Court does not "step into" things on a whim.

When lawsuits are filed and work their way through the appeals process up through the entire court system, the Supreme Court may decide to take a case as the court of final appeal, especially when there are conflicting decisions by lower courts that need to be resolved. But they don't just arbitrarily decide to call up Boehner or Ted Cruz and tell them to knock it off.

[barnabas63]

6. Right so if the federal gov. was sued by a state ..

..maybe over some fiscal matter?

[joshcryer]

8. I can see it now, Boehner v. Obama.

Given the dire nature of the thing, it'd get heard relatively quickly.

Obama's people won't need to argue the 14th Amendment, either. The argument would be that Obama did it to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," ie, fulfilling his oath of office.

[Nye Bevan]

16. Boehner would lack standing to sue in such a case (nt)

[joshcryer]

20. Who would have standing?

[Nye Bevan]

21. There's a key question that law professors have been debating.

One suggestion I saw was holders of credit default swaps whose trigger is a US government default.

[joshcryer]

22. Looks like Congress might have standing if it asserts injury:

http://www.congressionalresearch.com/RL30280/document.php

Raines v. Byrd revealed the reluctance of the Court to grant standing to
Members because of separation of powers considerations, but the ruling did not fully
define the circumstances in which congressional plaintiff suits may be allowed. The
Court in Raines was of the view that a congressional plaintiff may have standing if he
has suffered either a personal injury or an institutional one that amounts to vote
nullification.

Raines may make it impossible for a Member to obtain standing to challenge an
act of Congress and will require a Member in a suit challenging executive action to
show the nullification of a vote by the executive to establish an institutional injury.

This is actually worrisome, if the SCOTUS refuses to accept the case because of lack of standing then the US assurance to pay debts going forward could be harmed.

[joshcryer]

5. Happens if Obama orders the Treasury to ignore the Public Debt Acts.

At which point he will be simultaneously impeached by the Republican House and the SCOTUS will rule on the legality of ignoring the Public Debt Acts (edit: after, of course, someone sues Obama over the constitutionality of his actions; probably a House Republican, Boehner, Cantor, who knows).

In the intrim the US dollar will be temporarily worthless and any bonds issued after the 17th will be considered very risky.

If the SCOTUS rules against Obama, then the planetary economy collapses.

It's unlikely the SCOTUS would rule against Obama in that instance.

(Note: by ignoring the Public Debt Acts I mean that Obama orders the Treasury to issue bonds and pay debts and ignore any debt ceiling whatsoever. Just keep doing what it does.)

[Nye Bevan]

7. Really? The value of the US Dollar will fall to zero Euros?

I guess the only upside is, the value of my foreign currency stock mutual fund holdings will be infinity dollars.

[joshcryer]

9. I think people will stay away from it.

Perhaps that was hyperbole, I admit.

[Tx4obama]

10. If the House were to impeach it would go to the Senate to hold a hearing. So...

So... how does the SCOTUS get into the act - if there is no 'lawsuit' ?

Confused

[joshcryer]

13. See my other comment, sorry, I was being brief.

Wanted to be the first comment!

Obviously someone would have to sue Obama over the constitutionality of the act. Boehner v. Obama, possibly in the DC District Court (not sure on that count)?

The impeachment would be an entirely different matter, just something the GOPers would do, because they're assholes.

[Tx4obama]

18. Okay, thanks. I don't see Obama getting blamed by the Court or the Senate...

... since it would be the 'inaction' of the Republicans in Congress that have put us in this mess.

But I don't put anything past the insane GOPers at this point to toss everything they can find to toss at the wall to see what will stick

Gohmert is already talking about mpeachment, here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/13/louie-gohmert-impeach_n_4094707.html

[joshcryer]

19. Absolutely.

I think impeachment proceedings would start but they'd obviously end in the Senate as the Senate laughs at the ridiculousness of it all.

[Stallion]

11. No Case of Controversy

it would still need to work its way through Federal Court system like Bush v Gore and the Affordable Care Act. Appellate Courts do not hear or consider evidence-they simply decide legal issues based on lower court fact findings-or at least that's the way it is supposed to work

[jberryhill]

12. No

The Supreme Court doesn't "have to" do a blessed thing ever.

[Agnosticsherbet]

14. If and when somebody brings a lawsuit who has standing....

For instance, if President Obama declares that he will continue to pay the debts using authority granted by the 14th amendment, the House will take him to court and the SCOTUS will then hear their arguments.

The Supreme Court can not act unless there is a legal matter brought before them.

[Incitatus]

15. This is what I thought might happen,

if Cantor is such a fucking stupid dick as to let the economy collapse, Obama will do something to keep us going and it will go to the SC.

[HooptieWagon]

17. SCOTUS has no Constitutional involvement in budget.

There is no authority to issue a budget. The only action permitted the SCOTUS is ruling on the legality of budgetary actions taken by the Legislative and Executive branches. For example, if Obama uses the 14th to prevent a default, the SCOTUS can rule on the legality of that if the case is presented them.