5433

It’s not and nobody serious thinks so. And I include Barrett in that. She did co-author a scholarly journal article about weighing precedent against originalism and various other doctrines that judges should use when trying to decide the constitutionality of a law. It used several examples, including pointing out that constitution doesn’t specifically grant the federal government a monopoly on fiat currency. This was an issue that the US Supreme Court did have to address over a hundred and fifty years ago. Link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Tender_Cases

5434

This summarizes my own view, I think. There are some good arguments in there, and certainly some past executives have taken this approach, at least in part, and occasionally in exigent circumstances, e.g. Lincoln. I wonder if you could manage to do it judiciously; ignore a patently absurd ruling like one which declares the ACA unconstitutional, while abiding by reasonable ones. But that would take a lot of self-discipline!

Yes, I think I agree.

It isn’t hard to imagine that many of the people who make up the delegates at a constitutional convention will be insane people, the most extreme members of any constituency, in the same way that primary elections or caucuses tend to attract those people. I think a constitutional convention would be the worst possible thing we could do, and that the outcome would probably be pure misery.

5435

The Constitution provides that Congress has the power:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

I believe her argument is: “It says coin! Not print!”

5436

Her who?

5437

Amy Coney Barrett, per the piece that Timex was referencing.

5438

Specific cite please? Don’t have to get down to paragraph number or line number, just a specific page number is fine.

5439

You could read the linked article, in which she suggests that paper money is unconstitutional due to the coinage clause.

She goes on to say (at Pages 16-18) that it would never be considered by a court due to structural issues with how cases are presented. I am certain that she would not invalidate paper currency as unconstitutional, but she has certainly, as the article Timex quoted stated, suggested that paper money is unconstitutional.

5440

I did, and she doesn’t. Which is why I wanted to encourage you to read the article.

The Legal Tender issues don’t come up until page 30 in that Journal of Constitutional Law article. And as it’s a scholarly article about weighing various forms of precedent against originalism, the whole paper-currency issue is mentioned in passing as an example of a thorny issue the court had to tackle in the past. Nowhere do the authors (plural, note Barrett was not the sole author) strongly advocate that a modern judge should overturn those precedents.

5441

I don’t like the idea, but it seems certain that if the shoe was on the other foot, and the court was about to be 6-3 for progressive liberals, the next Republican President would abolish the notion of judicial review.

It wouldn’t get that far (reference Garland). Court was going to be 5-4 liberal and they blocked anything and everything to make sure that didn’t happen.

5442

Yes, and you see, the article that Timex was referencing said that she “suggested” that paper money was unconstitutional. And she did!

I agree that she doesn’t advocate that a court should overturn paper money. But since no one said that she thinks the courts should overturn paper money, I’m not sure what that argument gets you.

5443

Nevermind, we apparently do agree on the facts. I apologize for thinking you hadn’t read the link. My bad.

I am astounded that any reasonable adult can read that article, come to the conclusion that we did that she only mentioned an old case in passing as a pertinent example, and then think it’s perfectly fine for a modern journalist to try and cite that article to paint her as a crackpot who doesn’t believe money is legal. But hey, you do you.

5444

The reason, by the way, that I take Romney’s impeachment vote to be something more than purely cynical or purely symbolic is perhaps because of the statement he made at the time. He laid out the elements of the case very clearly, and persuasively argued for a guilty verdict on one of the two charges. He also, for what it’s worth, appeared very emotionally moved as he began his statement (at one point he seemed unable to speak for so long that I wondered if my YouTube had stopped running).

While his summation of the matter lacks the fire and detail of Schiff’s contemporaneous (and historic) oratory, it is more concise and has the rhetorical force that naturally comes from Romney’s being a member of the president’s own party. It is a powerful statement.

None of this is to say that Romney is a Good Guy necessarily, and he quite clearly is not (nor ever claimed to be) a liberal. But to say that he operates without principle is more than I can say.

5445

Agreed.

5446

What happens if we can’t get a funding deal approved in the next 9 days and the government shuts down? Can they still ram through this appointment or is there a requirement to pass a funding bill before any other business?

5447

I saw on the Supreme Court Reddit thread that government funding has no impact on the ability of the Senate to push a nomination through.

5448

Good to know, thanks. On the other hand, if they insist on pushing it through before funding the government feel like that’ll blow a lot more political capital and give the Dems more cover to expand the court.

5449

At this point winning the senate should be the priority. Well, that and the presidency. :)

5450

Good tweet thread by Max Kennerly.

5451

Doesn’t matter, alas. They’ll find some tortured made-up “conservative” rationale to fuck millions out of their health care. My own sis (whose coverage is expanded Medicaid) among them.

5452

Oh, I agree. The point of showing how bad-faith the ACA challenge is, and the likely ruling, is to provide justification for ‘radical’ measures like court-packing and / or ignoring judicial review.