All of which is a lengthy way of saying that regardless of how persuasive an argument of "it's manufactured and that's not what the Constitution envisions" might be, that style of argument seems unlikely to me to persuade anywhere near a majority of this Court.

. . . a textualist view, which I think a libertarian position would adopt, strikes me as favoring "it doesn't matter *why* the President decides, just that the President does."

The "why" is a political question committed to the President, just as the adjournment timing is committed to each Chamber.

. . . is the Court interfering in that assigned function. It strikes me as core functionalist.

Perhaps it might be the best answer -- that's not my point -- but I don't see how this Court has 4 votes to support it, let alone 5.

It's not about "inference generally" it's about assigned duties . . .

I think @beverlymann19.bsky.social misunderstood what I was saying, or at least missed the key nuance.

The constitution assigns deciding a dispute between the Chambers over adjournment to the President.

What I think the libertarians referenced earlier in the thread would not readily support . . .

I'm a little lost on how Marbury relates here? Perhaps you could expand?

I don't see libertarians readily jumping at the idea of the judicial branch arbitrating a matter of adjournment -- a matter textually committed to the President.

Doing so would require some functionalist work which I think is beyond any set of 5 votes on the current (or any recent) Court.

(2/2)

Interesting... if that's the theory, I think the Senate would have to affirmatively attempt to resist the adjournment (a failed vote to adjourn might suffice).

But even if that's met, it still seems challenging to overcome the political question aspect of this.

(1/2)

I agree with you re standing, but I'm a little lost on why the recess-appointed PAS officers wouldn't be able to exercise the full powers of the office?

I don't recall any cases suggesting this would result... would the argument be based in a claim the Senate was not, in fact, actually in recess?