I looked up examples in US History where Presidents and States outright ignored and defied SCOTUS rulings without consequence.

So in a hypothetical situation where the US population continued to fracture along political and cultural lines, how long before SCOTUS rulings were summarily ignored by anyone with the power to do so ?

Based on what I read it seems the ability or inability to enforce court rulings hinges on the Executive of a nation or state, so in a situation like that, where you have a state that becomes so totally dominated by one or the other side, would it be accurate to anticipate that at some point SCOTUS rulings could start being summarily ignored, to the point of not even trying to get around the rulings by other means.

I guess we should say how this would happen before we got to the point of a civil war.

I'm not worried about it happening in the US, I'm wondering what you would need to observe to predict a real break like that where the stability of a nation falls in such a way that we have not seen since our own Civil War, perhaps in a way that another could be unsuccessful in bringing a nation back together again to a better state than before it went south.

I suppose this could be a legal question of some type, but maybe not if things got to a point where the legal system became hobbled to the point of not working well enough to fix it.

If the Kackle had won, and the commies got control of both chambers in the last election, my thinking is they could just ignore any SCOTUS rulings that favor the other side.

In all sincerity, please re post an actual question. What you wrote makes absolute zero sense.

Also, if you are not concerned about "it happening in the US", than clearly state where you think it would.

I don't care about any other country than the US. My commitment and oath is to it alone.

If the president ignores the supremes there are instances where congress could act via the power of the purse or perhaps impeachment. If the president and congress are on the same side it falls to voters.

You mentioned "Civil War" in these United States.
(but this is not directed at you)

So, I'm gonna drift a little since the elephant is in my way...

I will say that the vast majority of Americans that "talk of it", truly have no idea whatsoever of the absolute horror and how it would actually appear and impact every single person, and the degree of variation to the anguish and sorrow incurred by all.

Those who do understand this, those who have seen this type of war, or are the children of same.

They know.

We do not want this.
People need to do everything, whatever can be done, to prevent this.

Civil War is not a solution, it's the last throws of failure to avoid the dissolution of this Republic.

If such a block were to exist, and voting wasn't working. Here in the united states the 2nd amendment exists so we the people can kill them.

This doesn't mean we'd have a civil war, we'd have a removal of a tyrannical government.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

They didn't have an answer either.

As I understand things, that's where the separation of the three branches work together. SCOTUS has the power of the judiciary, Legislative has the power of the purse and legislation, and the Executive branch has the power and responsibility to execute.

Any two of the three overrules the third branch through the respective use of their powers.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

They didn't have an answer either.

The irony is that both Left and Right claim the higher ground in the morality department at least. Both can't be correct.

WRT the monkey's comments about "most people don't understand the horror," I believe that anyone who takes the time to think deeply about the consequences of a civil war (or any war) could not advocate for one. I sincerely believe that those who express off-the-cuff remarks the like of "bring it, we have the guns" would change their stance upon serious reflection.

It seems to me that we have already gone too far wishing violence on the "other side." Not to mention that one side appears to have already adopted an official policy of condoning political assassination. If this plays out as true, what othe choice do we have but to resist it in the manner that they have adopted? Staying peaceable is tantamount to giving up the field to your opposition.

Ultimately it comes down to the power is in the people. Meaning that politicians will respond to the people in order to maintain their own position. That is up until a politician decides to be a tyrant and believes he has the firepower (i.e. police and military) to do it.

If a state or city decides to blatantly ignore SCOTUS, the people could engage in protests, strikes, or mass disobedience. Possibly they could vote the bastards out if the timing were right with an election.

If the federal Executive branch ignored SCOTUS it would be trickier since POTUS controls so much power aside even from armed agents and the military.

Your question implies that SCOTUS gets it right and that the populous agrees with SCOTUS. If they are wildly out of whack, then the people would support ignoring the SCOTUS ruling.

All scenarios of grossly violating a SCOTUS decision imply a major breakdown in governance. Imho, a single rogue official becoming a tyrant is not likely. It takes some amount of institutional support within the part of government defying SCOTUS, which suggests a fractured and divided public.

Yes. If we seem more fractured that we really are because the fruits and nuts and bad people scream louder and get most of the press, it seems there are lots more on the other side of the ledger who are peaceful, not nuts, and would seem like conservatives except they despise Trump and true conservatives, or are extremely uncomfortable with them, and vote democratic "just because" or because they believe things that are not true and don't exist in reality. It's just hard to understand.

Who are those people. Are they fence sitters like the post Para made recently about Pence. Those kind seem more dangerous than the true radicals who hate the USA, since the latter are easily identified and there are not as many. These middle road types have solid moral codes, are peaceful people, but are seething under the covers. These people I don't understand, and could they be more dangerous depending on circumstances.

I'm certainly not the Yoda of truth and light and am probably more wrong than I'm right, but who are these people? Have they always been here throughout US history but remained silent because things were good, or have we crossed a new rubicon of sorts.

President Thomas Jefferson defied a Supreme court order regarding the Embargo Act of 1807.

President Andrew Jackson in 1838 defied a SCOTUS order and forcibly relocated native American tribes.

President Lincoln had a number of issues and disputes with the Supreme Court and civil liberties. In 1861, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, which guarantees an arrestee with due process and appearance before a court. SCOTUS ruled the writ of habeas corpus suspension to be unconstitutional, but Lincoln defied the court and continued to hold detainees, some 14,000 civilians, without charges or trial throughout the Civil War.

During that war, Lincoln arrested and incarcerated secessionist leaning members of the Maryland legislature and the mayor of Baltimore to prevent Maryland from joining the Confederacy. Had MD joined the south, Washington would have been surrounded by Confederate states.

In another reported and controversial dust-up Lincoln became angry with the SCOTUS Chief Justice Roger Taney, and ordered his arrest. The head of the US Marshall's service refused to execute the arrest.

Wow.