It's interesting to read about history when Presidents ignored SCOTUS rulings. Notwithstanding arguments about the legality to do it, so to speak, I have a larger question:

What if/when the SCOTUS gets packed with just plain old rotten justices who have no interest in the country's founding principles, that those they rule against simply ignore them. By that I don't mean once in a while, but more or less all the time because the SCOTUS ends up like a bunch of NYC justices for example ?

Then what. Is it simply that by the time that ever happens, it won't matter since by that time the country would already have evolved into a third world country.

Or is it more complicated ?

Congress has the power to impeach and remove SCOTUS judges. It happened once in 1805.

They make the rulings, lets see them enforce it.

Andrew Jackson pretty much said the same thing.

This latest midnight ruling is a travesty.

Let SCOTUS defend it under the bright lights.

I do believe they consider themselves untouchable.

quote:

Originally posted by Bassamatic:
I do believe they consider themselves untouchable.

Even if that were true, they have no enforcement powers so simply ignoring their rulings effectively neutralizes them. If the legislative branch doesn’t impeach the President over it, then it becomes a fait accompli.

The Constitution says nothing about the Supreme Court being able to declare things Unconstitutional - that was an 1803 decision by the Supreme Court itself some 13-14 years after the Constitution was ratified (Marbury v. Madison) that granted itself that authority. So the Republic rolled along for a decade or so without judicial review and the wheels did not fall off.

Arguably it could once again, though be careful what you wish for. Unlikely but theoretically possible - say the Supreme Court invalidated Marbury, taking some checks and balances off the Executive and Legislative branches. When we like the Executive and have both houses of Congress--how cool might that be! But, imagine Obama or Biden in that situation, with Schumer and Pelosi running Congress....<<shudder>>

Comes down to cases, Joseph Stalin's quote (about the Vatican opposing one of his policies) "And how many divisions has the Pope?" might apply to an extreme situation. That said, the Executive ignoring the Judiciary's explicit declaration would bring about a Constitutional crisis. The supposed check on that is the impeachment (House) and conviction (Senate) process, which apply to either/both Justices and Presidents. Depending on Congress's actions, could wind up a new President, with Supreme Court vacancies for the existing President to fill, or with sound and fury, signifying nothing.

You could defy the court if you:
a) were certain that impeachment would fail in House or Senate,
b) knew that your defiant activities were actually going to be carried out, and
c) you and your party were willing to pay the political price

It would have to be a very critical action and would need to be carefully calculated and then sold.

It's called "balance of power." It's two out of three branches to make the call, not just one.

The only thing keeping government people within the bounds of legality is their voluntary compliance. When any court issues a ruling which imposes something on the government, there is no enforcement mechanism. Just as when POTUS issues an executive order, or when Congress issues a subpoena.

Compliance comes from the knowledge that it is the best course of action, assuming the government is working as designed. If a court issues a ruling in good faith but it turns out to be a bad ruling, there are mechanisms to appeal. When the system as a whole is working correctly with people of good faith, there is confidence that the correct result with eventually prevail.

So if POTUS ignores SCOTUS, the only remedies are indirect. Congress can impeach, the cabinet can Article 25, or the voters can choose someone else next election.

There's a very real possibility of devolving into true 3rd world chaos if courts go rogue and POTUS ignores them. I think that's why we've seen Trump try hard to stay within the system even though these judges are partisan activists.

Once a precedent is set, it's hard to un-set it. Whether that is a court that ignores the law to push ideological rulings, or a president who ignores the court, it's a dangerous road; not because of what any current government or court does, but because of what future ones will be emboldened to do.

The Constitution is carefully structured to limit the power of each branch of government so none of them can go too far off the rails. The most significant check on the judicial branch is that it has no power to enforce its mandates - that requires the cooperation of the executive's law enforcement and the legislature's money. The possibility that the other branches may ignore court rulings is a feature, not a bug.

The other big checks on the judiciary are congress's ability to limit the courts' jurisdiction and the nomination power. We've never had an actual court stacking happen but the threat has been used effectively, to pave the way for the New Deal, for example.
Google the "switch in time that saved nine" if interested.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
There's a very real possibility of devolving into true 3rd world chaos if courts go rogue and POTUS ignores them. I think that's why we've seen Trump try hard to stay within the system even though these judges are partisan activists.

Unfortunately, if Trump doesn’t ignore the courts and agrees to allow deportation trials for each of the 20 to 30 million illegals here now, it will take several generations to accomplish assuming it would even continue for that long. By then, US born “illegals” will outnumber the unvetted 3rd world people who came over the border originally and you’ll never get those out. The choice ultimately comes down to (1) do you ignore the courts and risk becoming a 3rd world country due to lawlessness, or (2) allow all those 3rd world illegals already in the country to live here and develop generational families based on non-western cultures, thus virtually guaranteeing a 3rd world society and its associated tribal aspects? The former approach risks disastrous results, the latter ensures it. There are no good solutions anymore.