You surely know better than me but my recollection is that an emergency can be terminated by a vote of Congress. The president can then veto that, and the usual 2/3 of Congress are then needed to overrule. I quickly checked on Wikipedia to confirm. So indeed Biden would have a significant range of options here!
Ok, so he won't because it would be the final nail in the coffin in domestic terms. But with right wing msm it is what will be played out, like the disruptions on the Voice.
btw, noted the reserve bank article in the grauniad, tried to post it to Twitter but don't think it got though for some reason.
It's hard to see how Johnson, an extremist dimwit whose only strength is his affable manner, can survive long, so a new Speaker is likely to be needed. Can anyone explain why nobody in Congress or the punditocracy has considered the obvious option of a neutral presiding officer, as in many parliaments in the Westminster tradition (Australia, Canada, India, Scotland...)? SFIK there isn't even a constitutional requirement that they have to be an elected member, or even a US citizen, so the recruitment pool is quite large.
I can explain why the Speaker is not a neutral. First, in a non-Parliamentary system, the legislature is a power independent of the administration: often run by a different political party. How is a neutral speaker going to handle this? Second, the Speaker is third in line from the Presidency. This has implications: Secret Service protection, access to the nuclear codes, symbolic primacy over the Senate.
Brief shutdown, followed by a deal, with a public narrative around Israel and the border that suits both sides.
The deal will really happen because a few Republicans will threaten behind closed doors to cross the aisle. They could threaten to go further and elect Hakeem Jeffries as speaker. My sense here is that Johnson was a very reluctant choice for some, and that 4 or 5 won’t risk important things for him.
Expelling Santos would help - would reduce the majority to 3.
Of all your possibilities, the last one (an Executive powers Hail Mary) is the most likely. A breakdown is coming, sooner or later, and appeasement will only delay it without even Chamberlin's excuse of buying time to prepare for War. What's left of what I think of as the old Republican Party blocked Jim Jordan from the Speakership, but that was surely out of personal animosity, not some vestige of conscious responsibility. Johnson will be as loyal a footsoldier to Trump as Jordan could hope to be. There will be no Republican aisle-crossing over a shutdown. That leaves a showdown. The media will enjoy it, at least.
You surely know better than me but my recollection is that an emergency can be terminated by a vote of Congress. The president can then veto that, and the usual 2/3 of Congress are then needed to overrule. I quickly checked on Wikipedia to confirm. So indeed Biden would have a significant range of options here!
If Biden capitulated on Palestine, why not here?
Ok, so he won't because it would be the final nail in the coffin in domestic terms. But with right wing msm it is what will be played out, like the disruptions on the Voice.
btw, noted the reserve bank article in the grauniad, tried to post it to Twitter but don't think it got though for some reason.
It's hard to see how Johnson, an extremist dimwit whose only strength is his affable manner, can survive long, so a new Speaker is likely to be needed. Can anyone explain why nobody in Congress or the punditocracy has considered the obvious option of a neutral presiding officer, as in many parliaments in the Westminster tradition (Australia, Canada, India, Scotland...)? SFIK there isn't even a constitutional requirement that they have to be an elected member, or even a US citizen, so the recruitment pool is quite large.
(cross-commented from the other blog site)
I can explain why the Speaker is not a neutral. First, in a non-Parliamentary system, the legislature is a power independent of the administration: often run by a different political party. How is a neutral speaker going to handle this? Second, the Speaker is third in line from the Presidency. This has implications: Secret Service protection, access to the nuclear codes, symbolic primacy over the Senate.
Optimistic guess...
Brief shutdown, followed by a deal, with a public narrative around Israel and the border that suits both sides.
The deal will really happen because a few Republicans will threaten behind closed doors to cross the aisle. They could threaten to go further and elect Hakeem Jeffries as speaker. My sense here is that Johnson was a very reluctant choice for some, and that 4 or 5 won’t risk important things for him.
Expelling Santos would help - would reduce the majority to 3.
Of all your possibilities, the last one (an Executive powers Hail Mary) is the most likely. A breakdown is coming, sooner or later, and appeasement will only delay it without even Chamberlin's excuse of buying time to prepare for War. What's left of what I think of as the old Republican Party blocked Jim Jordan from the Speakership, but that was surely out of personal animosity, not some vestige of conscious responsibility. Johnson will be as loyal a footsoldier to Trump as Jordan could hope to be. There will be no Republican aisle-crossing over a shutdown. That leaves a showdown. The media will enjoy it, at least.
yes
Trump used it to "build the wall."