> There is no explicit power for the executive to ignore the judicial.
But there is: it's called the Constitution. Not any particular clause or article, but the whole document. The executive is allowed to check the judicial if the judicial ignores the Constitution. How else is the executive supposed to check the judicial?
> It would be a VERY BAD precedent to do that again.
It would be a bad precedent, but it would be an even worse precedent for the Supreme Court to force the government to default on its debt. The least bad of the two evils would be for the government to continue paying its debt by waving the debt ceiling away.
> How else is the executive supposed to check the judicial?
Pardons and nominating judges. Disregarding the Court is a constitutional crisis.
> would be an even worse precedent for the Supreme Court to force the government to default on its debt
On one hand, we have the Court allowing the President to overrule the Congress. Two branches agree. On the other hand, we have the President unilaterally overruling the Congress and the Court. One is a check. The other a coup.
> Disregarding the Court is a constitutional crisis.
Then a constitutional crisis there shall be. Words don't scare me. If a "constitutional crisis" means the government _doesn't_ default on its debt and some politicians and pundits cry foul, and nothing else changes under the heavens, then let's have a "constitutional crisis".
> On the other hand, we have the President unilaterally overruling the Congress and the Court. One is a check. The other a coup.
Congress can impeach and convict if it's such a big deal. Until they do...
> Then a constitutional crisis there shall be. Words don't scare me
In what universe is constitutional crisis, the suspension of the rule of law, not cause a default? You’re trading a minor infraction for a major one. This is a false economy.
> Congress can impeach and convict if it's such a big deal. Until they do
Police can arrest me if murder is such a big deal.
> can think of a few situations where taking the life of another human being would be justified, as a last resort
Straw man. We aren’t saying there couldn’t be a situation where causing social and economic meltdown is valid. If America is threatening global nuclear war, yes, causing it to burn into a deep depression and possibly dictatorship is worth risking. You’re doing that to avoid technical default, which would occur anyway in case of a constitutional crisis.
Earlier, you conditioned: “if a "constitutional crisis" means the government _doesn't_ default on its debt…” That isn’t a valid condition. If the Congress and Court say debt limit, and the President tries to override, you get a constitutional crisis and legal default, on America’s debt, but also everything else.
Take two seconds to think about what happens when a president you don't like starts using this power. Trump: "The Supreme Court made the wrong decision in denying my vote fraud lawsuit. It's unconstitutional to allow voter fraud to determine an election. Therefore I'm declaring myself President for a second term."
But there is: it's called the Constitution. Not any particular clause or article, but the whole document. The executive is allowed to check the judicial if the judicial ignores the Constitution. How else is the executive supposed to check the judicial?
> It would be a VERY BAD precedent to do that again.
It would be a bad precedent, but it would be an even worse precedent for the Supreme Court to force the government to default on its debt. The least bad of the two evils would be for the government to continue paying its debt by waving the debt ceiling away.