Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

kentuck

(111,051 posts)

29. Thanks! Excellent read!

Reply to pnwmom (Reply #26)

Wed Oct 2, 2013, 10:46 PM

Oct 2013

<snip>
The contrary view — that the president must sit helplessly as the economy collapses, fettered by a reading of an 18th-century document that not even the founders would have believed appropriate — reflects a legalistic mentality that none of our great presidents has possessed or acted on.
===============

It would take a President with a lot of courage to challenge the Congress in such a way, I would think?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should the White House be talking to the Supreme Court Justices...? [View all] kentuck Oct 2013 OP

Who ever can help... I saw an article on here a day back.. yuiyoshida Oct 2013 #1

Or the President could go ahead... kentuck Oct 2013 #3

'Talking,' NO, highly improper. elleng Oct 2013 #2

Do they talk...? kentuck Oct 2013 #4

Only via the Solicitor General (or another lawyer) and only through channels. longship Oct 2013 #5

Thanks. kentuck Oct 2013 #7

Well, the Solicitor General is the President's advocate through the DOJ. longship Oct 2013 #14

That makes sense. kentuck Oct 2013 #15

I think that would be a really good way to get impeached and removed from office. longship Oct 2013 #16

I don't think they could get two-thirds of the Senate to remove him from office? kentuck Oct 2013 #17

That's what Nixon thought, too. longship Oct 2013 #22

I think most folks agree with you on that point. kentuck Oct 2013 #25

Possibly. But they'd file the case through DOJ. longship Oct 2013 #28

Personally... kentuck Oct 2013 #31

I am with you all the way, kentuck. longship Oct 2013 #33

When there is a 'case and controversy,' yes, elleng Oct 2013 #6

+1 pinboy3niner Oct 2013 #24

The White House has rejected this. former9thward Oct 2013 #8

I think I might ask for a couple of more opinions... kentuck Oct 2013 #9

It was not just two advisers. former9thward Oct 2013 #10

agreed G_j Oct 2013 #11

They do have a credible argument... kentuck Oct 2013 #12

This message was self-deleted by its author lastlib Oct 2013 #13

The US Supreme Court does not do advisory opinions treestar Oct 2013 #18

How did they get Justice Roberts to rule on the constitutionality of the ACA? kentuck Oct 2013 #20

Several states sued to overturn the ACA. Nye Bevan Oct 2013 #21

Who could have standing the challenge the legality of the debt ceiling? treestar Oct 2013 #27

One suggestion I read was holders of credit default swaps. Nye Bevan Oct 2013 #35

Hell no MFrohike Oct 2013 #19

In that case... kentuck Oct 2013 #23

Lots of legal authorities say he could. Then it's up to Congress pnwmom Oct 2013 #26

Thanks! Excellent read! kentuck Oct 2013 #29

I say yes MFrohike Oct 2013 #30

SCOTUS WOULD NOT HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION. djg21 Oct 2013 #32

Thanks! kentuck Oct 2013 #34

This is the way I see it, strategery blunder Oct 2013 #36

This was an excellent post/thread... 2banon Oct 2013 #37