General Discussion

with them about the meaning of words. They may claim that the debts and obligations are still valid but they don't have the money to meet them and therefore they are not altering or destroying the obligations and debts. Similar to a debtor being able to acknowledge the validity of the debt, in other words the service/materials provided or financial instrument (bond) acted upon, is not in dispute but the debtor hasn't raised current resources to pay it but does have the ability to raise the resources.

That reluctant stance for a private debtor of course would get challenged in court and a fully honest and functioning court, which of course we don't have, would properly instruct the defendant to raise the resources. We don't however know about the SC compelling the Congress to take a specific action. We are most familiar with the courts striking down laws they've passed. The SC would basically be asked to compel the House to take a vote. Knowing this bunch of MAGA justices they would immediately fall back on a separation of powers ruling. Unless of course Harlan's money would be negatively impacted and then in that case Cash and Carry Clarence would claim he never heard of separation of powers.

The long and short may come down to whether it can be argued to the SC that there is a Constitutional basis for them to order affirmatively voting on and enacting a bill. In the case where they find that something passed by Congress violates the Constitution they are negating a Congressional action. It could be very problematic if the SC were to get itself into the position where the crooked justices could force a narrowly divided Congress, that is under the control of the party opposite the justices, to pass certain laws/take certain acts deemed "necessary" by the SC justices themselves.