"The court famously has no enforcement authority. It’s authority is based in acceptance of the court’s legitimacy. But it can’t do whatever the hell it wants however it wants and expect deference. [E]xecutive ought to brush off the court’s junta-like attempts to rule by edict."
Wrote Will Wilkinson, quoted in "Reporters call for White House to 'simply ignore' Supreme Court decisions/SCOTUS ruled 5-4 on Wednesday to reinstate Trump-era rule" (Fox News).
The typical Constitutional Law casebook addresses this topic within the first 25 pages. I bantered about this subject with law students for decades. We always considered the apocryphal Andrew Jackson line — "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" — and why didn't Richard Nixon react to the Watergate tapes case by destroying the tapes?
So what's the answer, Professor Althouse? Oh, that's not how we do it.
Posts
61 comments:
Oh, Professor Althouse! Give us the answer now. You’re retired!
Progressives have to cheat in order to do anything. Maybe THAT should give them a clue??
"So what's the answer, Professor Althouse? Oh, that's not how we do it."
Sigh....OK, I'll say it for old times'sake...
And you, a law professor!
Back in the 00's I commonly heard right leaning friends argue that we should just ignore bad decisions from the supreme court and using the Jackson line as precedent. Democrats should be careful about cracking this door because there's a lot of energy on the right ready to shove it wide open if given the chance.
That said, if Democrats were going to learn that kind of lesson, they would have learned it from the judicial filibuster.
This Will Wikerson dude is Clearly a democrat
Democrats say things like the Andrew Jackson line John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!
Because they have No respect for America
why didn't Richard Nixon react to the Watergate tapes case by destroying the tapes?
Because Republicans HAVE respect for America
Beyond the differing branches of government sparring over decisions by the Supreme Court is actual civil disobedience by the peoples of the various States. There was wide spread civ-dis after the Taney court's Dred Scott decision specifically in the returning of escaped slaves to the southern States.
And...once again, the people who were terrified of Trump because he was a threat to our institutions casually toss aside even our most cherished institutions the moment they become inconvenient to the liberal cause. What a surprise!
"and why didn't Richard Nixon react to the Watergate tapes case by destroying the tapes?"
It worked for Hillary.
What is it with democrats and their cheerleaders with bylines in the media being unable to tolerate any authority not controlled by leftists. The party of tolerance never practices what it preaches and that gap between stated ideals (“believe all women!”) and actions (“he’s just got friendly hands”) grows more difficult for even their side to accept. That’s why no one believes Joe gives a shit about high oil prices or really “fixing” immigration. Democrats have extremely sensitive hearing when it comes to dog whistles but are deaf when whistleblowers appear in their administrations. They see racism in every penumbra of Republican lawmaking but excuse the KKK members and all-white clubs that democrats favor. The faćade is crumbling.
Trying to visualize a system in which the judiciary is given its own army…
"Reporters call for White House to 'simply ignore' Supreme Court decisions/SCOTUS ruled 5-4 on Wednesday to reinstate Trump-era rule"
I hope the White House is this stupid.
Reporters, again.
Who’s side are they on, anyway?
We like judicial activism now, unexpectedly.
Access denied at the link.
What if then SCOTUS deputizes citizens to enforce it? CIVIL WAR?
The 4 includes three nutball liberals so doesn't really matter in the sense of auctoritas.
wiki: In ancient Rome, auctoritas referred to the general level of prestige a person had in Roman society, and, as a consequence, his clout, influence, and ability to rally support around his will. Auctoritas was not merely political, however; it had a numinous content and symbolized the mysterious "power of command" of heroic Roman figures.
Journalist? Wilkinson is just another shitbird activist with an agenda.
In any question of power, divide the confused word back into auctoritas, potestas, officium and imperium and decide which you're talking about.
Trump abided by every court decision against him. Challenged them, legally, but abided by them. Every one.
Yet he is the "dictator" and "lawbreaker" of the liberal imagination.
Will Wilkinson, Insurrectionist.
I wonder what are the consequences of simply ignoring? should I hold my breath?
isn't that what separation of powers is for?
I think of SC opinions as /sanctions/ +++ ?don't they have workarounds in real world?
Didn’t Biden already do this when he tried to reimpose a pandemic moratorium on renter evictions after the Supreme Court signaled it was unconstitutional? Biden knew that but tried to extend the moratorium anyway, a clear attempt to ignore the law. His Administration has done similar things on immigration, relying on the slow timing of court processes to thwart the rule of law. I don’t recall anything like this in the Trump Administration.
Iman at 8:28 AM
Access denied at the link.
At the webpage, click in the address box and then press the ENTER key on your keyboard.
You have to do this often when you go to a FoxNews website.
I agree. The only way "rule by Judges" will end is if THE DEMOCRATS take the lead. So, go ahead Biden IGNORE the courts and their "Injuctions" - I'm on your side.
Btw, its amusing that will wilkerson is a "Blue checK" twitter maven despite being fired for a racist remark about lynching, while Bob Wright and Mickey Kaus are not. Just more evidence that twitter is a leftwing cesspool.
This could be a good thing for red states. Just tell the feds we are sanctuaries and none of your fucking stupid laws apply to us.
Shorter Wilkinson: The Supreme Court is like a bus, when it stops moving toward your destination, you step off.
"Oh, that's not how we do it."
After all, con law is a con. Important for students to learn, I agree.
'How many divisions does the Pope have?'
--Stalin
We need to garner an answer
Thanks, Mike Sylwester!
Critter said...
Didn’t Biden already do this when he tried to reimpose a pandemic moratorium on renter evictions after the Supreme Court signaled it was unconstitutional?
It would have helped if SCOTUS had actually ruled the law unconstitutional but Kavanaugh et al decided that it was only a little bit unconstitutional since it was going to sunset.
Your link took me here;
Access Denied
You don't have permission to access "http://www.foxnews.com/media/reporters-white-house-simply-ignore-scotus-decisions" on this server.
Reference #18.9ca86468.1649344014.12c36aa5
"Some reporters are calling on President Biden to ignore Supreme Court decisions that they believe are politically motivated."
They don't really mean it. Jeff Bezos really means it, though. Carlos Slim is pretty agitated about it too. What does Elon Musk say?
I predicted before Biden was sworn in that, eventually, the Administration would ignore SCOTUS rulings if those rulings inhibited the policies favored by the Democrats.
With that out of the way, I hope the Administration does ignore SCOTUS rulings it doesn't like. The system needs to be burned to the ground, and this is the perfect match and can of gasoline to do it. I no longer respect our government, and I won't do jack shit to support it any longer.
Or, to coin a phrase, "How many divisions does the SC have?"
How exactly does one weasel around hundreds of years of precedent that the Supreme Court handles only "cases and controversies" and therefore does not issue "advisory opinions." To do so would be unconstitutional under existing precedent. Is there a nuanced argument I am missing?
If the Democrats try to ignore the Supreme Court decisions, I could see that as a precedent to allow states to ignore federal regulations. It would make for an interesting time. Florida is showing how that could work.
"How exactly does one weasel around hundreds of years of precedent that the Supreme Court handles only "cases and controversies" and therefore does not issue "advisory opinions." To do so would be unconstitutional under existing precedent. Is there a nuanced argument I am missing?"
You start by redefining the meanings of words, including "weasel".
Sounds like reporters are trying to incite the President to not act faithfully to preserve and defend the US Constitution. Perhaps the next Congress can hold a 6th of April committee to review.
Folks say stuff.
Jupiter at 10:07 AM
Your link took me here;
Access Denied
You don't have permission to access "http://www.foxnews.com/media/reporters-white-house-simply-ignore-scotus-decisions" on this server.
Go back to that same page where it says Access Denied.
Click in the webpage's address box (where it says "http:....")
Then press the ENTER button on your keyboard.
You usually have to do this when you follow a link to FoxNews.
“Access Denied
You don't have permission to access "http://www.foxnews.com/media/reporters-white-house-simply-ignore-scotus-decisions" on this server.
Reference #18.e48d4017.1649346991.4075970”
While in the game of rock-scissors-paper I don't think the supreme court should be a rock that flies through paper and breaks scissors, I don't think ignoring their ruling should be the way to go. Seems like there should be a process akin to overriding a veto, wherein it would take a super majority of congress and a presidential signature to overrule a supreme court ruling. Not likely, but possible.
I get that you won't answer the big question about the balance of power between branches of the federal government.
Would you answer a procedural question? How much of a hearing is typical when SCOTUS is asked to stay a lower court ruling, as is the case here?
Richard Nixon did not destroy the tapes because he was an honorable man and not a democrat.
"...why didn't Richard Nixon react to the Watergate tapes case by destroying the tapes?"
I believe the answer has nothing to do with "respect" for Supreme Court decisions. It has to do with respect for another governmental decision.
In the summer of 1974, Nixon was edging perilously close to the cliff of impeachment. Destroying the tapes would have pushed him off that cliff. Nixon took a gamble by refusing to release the tapes. He lost in court. So he took a second gamble. He gambled he had a better chance of avoiding impeachment if he released the tapes, blemishes and all, than if he defied the court order.
Of course, the tapes were damaging enough that Nixon lost his second gamble as well. He resigned rather than face impeachment and likely conviction.
It had nothing to with "respect" for judicial rulings.
Nixon got bad advise from Len garment, his "Friend" and personal lawyer. Garment told him that destroying the tapes might open him up to legal consequences and that Nixon had a good chance of winning his case before the SCOTUS. Note: Garment was responsible for JOhn Dean.
In any case, Nixon was just following his "inner loser". He always wanted to go with the Establishment and take the "safe" "respectable" route. He would always agonize over descisions, and like most pols, look for compromise or try to take his cake and eat it.
Buchanan wanted him to destroy all the tapes - except those first suponead by Congress, in the summer of 1973. As Pat said, it wasn't those first suponead tapes that sunk Nixon, it was the ones AFTER that.
“ You don't have permission to access "http://www.foxnews.com/media/reporters-white-house-simply-ignore-scotus-decisions" on this server.
Reference #18.e48d4017.1649346991.4075970””
Yeah Fox does that.
Google some of the text and you’ll get in
I guess I shouldn’t link to Fox!
'Yeah Fox does that.'
I have never had this happen to me before...whatever.
Not long ago, I realized that the people complaining about threats to democratic norms were really complaining about threats to Democratic norms.
Seems like there should be a process akin to overriding a veto, wherein it would take a super majority of congress and a presidential signature to overrule a supreme court ruling. Not likely, but possible.
There is. It's called "change the law".
If the law is in conflict with the Constitution, it's called "change the Constitution".
Both of these require more effort and votes than the left is willing to provide.
KBJ confirmed. I assume if, say, Kagan hit by a train this afternoon, KBJ could take that seat. Maybe different of Chief's seat suddenly vacant.
"It's different when we do it" seems obligatory.
President Silver Alert is too out of it to have any clue but, imagine being a Biden and knowing that history is going to dunk on your family for at least the next 50 years.
Imagine being Jimmy Carter and finally, after 42 years, a President comes along that is so completely incompetent that your are easily displaced as the worst president in history.
The best part, President Carter is a decent man. President Biden is not. History will be cruel to him and his family. It will be heartwarming. It will not alleviate the pain and trouble that this "10 lbs. of shit in a 5 lb. bag" has caused the country, but it will help. It is likely that even his grandchildren, those that he acknowledges anyway, will be mocked for their entire lives.
"Yeah Fox does that."
I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it's purposeful. 'Puters, Nuff said.
Anyway, it's trivial to deal with (see Mike Sylwester, 8:57 AM). You don't have to take the trouble to google text.
History will wait a while on Biden.
The tension between the two wings of the party of Andrew Jackson and John C Calhoun is ever present. Looks like the latter is ascendent with this nullification idea.
The reason that a sitting President shouldn't ignore an order from the Supreme Court is the same reason why they shouldn't ignore a law passed by congress. It would undermine the legitimacy of the Presidential office. (And that might come back to bite their party in the next election.) Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean that you should do a thing.
These reporters are insurrectionists and should thus be investigated by a
congressional commission, the April 6th Commission, with a huge budget
and “bipartison” membership. I can’t wait until the hearings are televised.
These reporters are insurrectionists and should thus be investigated by a
congressional commission, the April 6th Commission, with a huge budget
and “bipartison” membership. I can’t wait until the hearings are televised.
Post a Comment