Tornado Alley (PROG)

[fuagf]

Surprised you ended up going to a Republican for that. And surprised that you would say

"The courts continue business as usual during a government shutdown.
P - U.S. courts should continue to hear and decide cases without interruption. Thus, all cases including civil and criminal, old and new should be processed and argued, and judgments should be issued and enforced, according to normal schedules and priorities.
https://latta.house.gov/faqgovernmentshutdown/federalprojectsandoperations.htm#:~:text=U.S.%20courts%20should%20continue%20to,to%20normal%20schedules%20and%20priorities."

Surprised, because i don't see your business as usual statement as being consistent
with this from your Republican Latta link:

These funds should sustain Judiciary activities for approximately ten working days after an appropriations lapse. Once these balances are exhausted, if a lapse in appropriations still exists, each court will need to limit its operations to mission-critical activities, but the AO expects most judicial functions should continue during any appropriations lapse.

* U.S. courts should continue to hear and decide cases without interruption. Thus, all cases including civil and criminal, old and new should be processed and argued, and judgments should be issued and enforced, according to normal schedules and priorities. Judicial activity should be limited to those functions necessary and essential to continue the resolution of cases.
Your link - https://latta.house.gov/faqgovernmentshutdown/federalprojectsandoperations.htm#:~:text=U.S.%20courts%20should%20continue%20to,to%20

The 10 days Latta says there is basically consistent with the
two weeks i've been calling it. It's stated clearly here, i thought:

Impact on Access to Justice

Unlike executive branch agencies, the federal courts can continue operations for about two weeks following a government shutdown. When a shutdown loomed in September 2019, the U.S. federal courts confirmed they could use reserve or carryover funds accumulated from various revenue sources not dependent on Congress, such as case filing fees. When courts are on notice that a government shutdown may be looming, they can take steps to conserve funds by deferring non-critical expenses — for example, by curbing travel, new hires, and certain contracts.

Access to the courts is fundamental to American democracy; however, not all court functions are deemed essential during a government shutdown.

While courts attempt to operate using reserve funds, their resources are limited. With less funding courts may delay cases, reduce operating hours, and suspend certain court functions.

Under the Antideficiency Act only “essential work” related to the “safety of human life and protection of property,” such as criminal prosecutions, continues unhindered. Civil cases, on the other hand, often experience significant delays. Imposing a moratorium on civil trials was even suggested as a money-saving measure in a prior shutdown.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=175944172

I thought i had posted this one:

Judiciary Operating on Limited Funds During Shutdown

Published on January 7, 2019

During the partial shutdown of the federal government, which began Dec. 22, 2018, the Judiciary has continued to operate by using court fee balances and other “no-year” funds. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has revised its original estimate and now is working toward the goal of sustaining paid operations through Jan. 18, 2019.

In an effort to achieve this goal, courts have been asked to delay or defer non-mission critical expenses, such as new hires, non-case related travel, and certain contracts. Judiciary employees are reporting to work and currently are in full-pay status.

If existing funds run out and new appropriated funds do not become available, the Judiciary will operate under the terms of the Anti-Deficiency Act, which allows “essential work” to continue during a lapse in appropriations. This mission critical work includes activities to support the exercise of the courts’ constitutional powers under Article III, specifically the resolution of cases and related services. Each court would determine the staff necessary to support its mission critical work.

In response to requests by the Department of Justice, some federal courts have issued orders suspending, postponing, or holding in abeyance civil cases in which the government is a party for a limited period, subject to further consideration, or until appropriated funds become available. Such orders are published on court internet sites. Criminal cases are expected to proceed uninterrupted.
https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/judiciary-news/2019/01/07/judiciary-operating-limited-funds-during-shutdown

Then there is this where the lack of court access for non-essential civil cases is stated in different words:

Schumer Was (Unfortunately) Right, But Either Way, the Infighting Must Stop
[...]
Note also that the government workers who would be required to work through a shutdown would not be paid. In past shutdowns, the new spending legislation that has restarted the government has always included back pay, not only for those who worked but for those who were involuntarily furloughed, amounting to a forced-but-paid vacation. Does anyone imagine any of that happening under Trump and the current Republican majorities?

Even more fundamentally, as Schumer repeatedly pointed out, Trump and Musk would have no reason even to agree to any legislation to reopen the government—ever—because a President’s discretion is much wider during a shutdown than it is at other times. Trump would love to be in that situation.

Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, who disagreed with Schumer about the CR, inadvertently made a telling point when he said in an interview .. https://youtu.be/7G56ady0rDA?si=dfJY5ckmhCDNlpzR .. that the Trump administration had lost some court cases in the last few weeks, as judges have struck down Trump’s lawless attempts to dismantle the government. Kaine seemed to think that voting for the CR would amount to an endorsement of lawlessness, but that has it precisely backward, because judges can only rule that Trump has violated a spending law if that spending law exists. Without a CR, there is no law for the courts to enforce.

[Insert: Note: As i've repeated here many times that,
for me, was one key reason i went with Schumer.]

To be clear, Trump might well be in the final stages of pulling the plug on the rule of law entirely, which would mean that he will not even abide by the requirements of the CR that has now passed (and that he himself signed). If that is where we are headed, however, that would not make Schumer wrong but instead would mean that nothing matters anymore. If Trump is going to spend what he wants, and only what he wants, then Congress will be irrelevant.

In other words, if there is any life left in the rule of law, the CR constrains Trump in ways that a shutdown would not. And as noted above, unlike previous presidents and congresses that have viewed ending a shutdown quickly as essential to good governance, the shutdown that Schumer and his fellow group of Democrats avoided might well have never ended.

And if that had happened, Democrats would have been to blame for handing Trump power that even robust courts could not nullify.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=175963553

Also see:

US judiciary can keep operating for 2 weeks if government shuts down
By Nate Raymond
September 20, 20232:47 AM GMT+10 Updated 2 years ago

Summary

* Administrative Office plans to use fees and other balances to keep courts open
* Threat of shutdown a "consistent matter of concern," top judicial policymaker says

Sept 19 (Reuters) - The federal courts will be able to remain open and continue operations for at least two weeks should Congress fail to pass legislation to avert what would be the fourth government shutdown in a decade, the judiciary's administrative arm said on Tuesday.
[...]
The threat of a shutdown is a "consistent matter of concern by the judiciary," U.S. Circuit Judge Lavenski Smith, the chair of the executive committee of the judiciary's policymaking body, the Judicial Conference, told reporters last week.

But as in past shutdowns, the federal judiciary retains some ability to remain open and avoid furloughs among its 33,000 employees by using court fee balances and other funds not dependent on Congress appropriating new funding.

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the judiciary's administrative arm, in a statement on Tuesday said that this time around, should a lapse in appropriations occur, the judiciary will remain open for at least two weeks.

"As they have during prior appropriations lapses, the courts and federal defender's offices are conserving available funds by deferring non-mission critical expenses, such as new hires, non-case-related travel, and certain contracts," an AO spokesperson said in a statement.

Most court proceedings during the two week window will occur as scheduled, though if a lawyer from an executive branch agency like the Justice Department is furloughed due to a shutdown, hearings and filing deadlines may be extended, the AO said.

Should the judiciary run out of court fees and other available balances before Congress passes a continuing resolution or spending bill, the judiciary could under the Anti-Deficiency Act continue limited "excepted activities."
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judiciary-can-keep-operating-2-weeks-if-government-shuts-down-2023-09-19/

And repeat:

Senate Democrats had a no-win position. Chuck Schumer made the right call

[...]As for Democrats’ political struggles against the Trump administration, a shutdown would have redirected the focus away from the economy, Trump’s destructive tariffs, appeasement of Russia and betrayal of Ukraine, and Elon Musk’s chainsaw and wood chipper approach to reducing the federal workforce. Furthermore, the party making the policy demand is blamed for a shutdown. Republicans were blamed in 2013 and 2018-19 shutdowns for wanting to defund Obamacare and immigration demands, respectively. That’s because demanding policy concessions to keep the government open is not a winning argument. It’s the equivalent of a small child holding his breath and waiting for everyone else to turn blue. It doesn’t work.

Furthermore, Schumer was likely honoring the wishes of members who wanted him to save them from themselves. Punchbowl reported Monday that “based on our conversations with Democratic senators, many more Senate Democrats than just the nine who voted with Schumer agreed with his ultimate decision.” This is a familiar strategy in Washington, known as “vote no, hope yes.” Leadership can be a lonely job when tough decisions like this one are required. After all, a leader with no followers is just a guy taking a walk.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=175964785

Then:

[...]One, and two, Musk wanted a shutdown because he knew it would make things easier for him to do without any legal moves against him at all.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=175940415

Lastly:

Trump wants a shutdown under Biden's watch. He would say and do anything to being chaos to America - under Biden's watch. The worse the economy, and anything else, is when Trump takes over the more he would be able to claim false credit for fixing things:

Government funding plan collapses as Trump makes new demands

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=175563083

Also I agree with Schumer's position that Trump could very well during a shutdown say, "well lookee here, government is working just fine under these shutdown conditions, lets make it permanent." As i read it if appropriation funding for the judiciary has run out then court access for civil cases is a no no, if Trump chose to follow that path. And i think that taking the position that it has never happened before is too risky with the gung-ho anti-democracy duo in action.

And it appears on all the evidence i've seen that Trump and Musk wanted
a shutdown. That alone should be enough reason not to give it to them.