I'd really like to hear Mark Joseph Stern's take on how effective the 14th Amendment approach would have been, or COULD be in future maneuvers over the GOP's debt ceiling hostage-taking, and how SCOTUS or other courts might respond.

The entire debt ceiling limit really needs to be put away forever, if at all possible, so we can be like other countries.

I do not understand how any capitulation on a made-up crisis (the debt ceiling) can be called a win. The debt ceiling is clearly covered under the 14th and the putting the pressure on the Court to push the US (and the world) into an economic crisis is a slam dunk. The bought-off court would feel the heat from their corporate benefactors and back down.

...and it is not flat spending. If spending doesnt keep up with inflation it is a SPENDING CUT. And a cut to the most vulnerable among us. A BIG LOSS!

If a deal HAD to be made, then OK, Biden minimized potential losses, and got a good deal, considering.

The big question is, DID a deal really have to be made in the 1st place?

DonL @1 said:

The entire debt ceiling limit really needs to be put away forever, if at all possible, so we can be like other countries.

Agreed. And that's what I'll be waiting to watch. Biden indicated in recent weeks that he was interested in invoking the 14th, but wanted to wait until later.

"Later" may not be until after the Budget agreement is signed, sealed and deliver this Fall. But, afterward, I'll be watching to see if he takes some action to have the Debt Limit declared unconstitutional.

Adam said @2 and 3:

I do not understand how any capitulation on a made-up crisis (the debt ceiling) can be called a win.

Where's the "capitulation"? If he got a better deal than he would have had to agree to to avoid a Govt. shutdown in the fall, while taking the Debt Limit off the table for two years in the bargain, where is the "capitulation"?

The debt ceiling is clearly covered under the 14th and the putting the pressure on the Court to push the US (and the world) into an economic crisis is a slam dunk.

Yeah, well. While I agree with you that the 14th rules here, it was also a "slam dunk" that Saddam had WMD.

You may be misunderestimating the corruptness of our SCOTUS.

The bought-off court would feel the heat from their corporate benefactors and back down.

Maybe. Maybe not. Even if so, if Biden could get a BETTER deal than he'd have had to accept this fall, by using the leverage of an impending default OR his invocation of the 14th, why should he give that leverage away before he needed to?

...and it is not flat spending. If spending doesnt keep up with inflation it is a SPENDING CUT. And a cut to the most vulnerable among us. A BIG LOSS!

Again. If he would have been forced to agree to LARGER cuts this fall, why isn't this a BIG WIN?

DonL @4 said:

If a deal HAD to be made, then OK, Biden minimized potential losses, and got a good deal, considering. ... The big question is, DID a deal really have to be made in the 1st place?

I assume you are asking if he could have or should have invoked the 14th (or minted the Trillion Dollar Coin). If so, see my remarks above. Even if the argument can be made that he didn't have to make a deal now, he absolutely WOULD have had to make one before October.

So, why not get a better deal NOW with the added leverage of a pending default? (Or concerns by the GOP that he'd invoke the 14th? Why take that all off the table before he needed to?)