What happens if an administration refuses to follow a Supreme Court ruling? - Page 2

BlueTrain · July 19, 2010, 10:39 AM

You could just as easily started the thread by saying the animosity of the John Roberts Supreme Court towards the Obama Administration. And besides, one was elected, the other appointed. Maybe the supreme court vacancies should be filled by election, too.

sousana · July 19, 2010, 11:23 AM

Then the justices would be obligated to supporters who donate money to their election campaigns, justices who would then have to recuse themselves should they face a case in which their supporter has an interest in. Honorable men and women would then be obligated to stand up to their campain promises.

What kind of promises would YOU make for an appointment to a lifelong bench where history can be made on any given case?

mack59 · July 19, 2010, 01:40 PM

Historically - Andrew Jackson ignored the USSC and suffered no consequence as a result. I believe he said something to the effect that, well the court has made their decision, now let them enforce it.

FDR - didn't like the court when it ruled parts of his new deal unconstitutional and he obeyed the court but then tried to pack it by trying to appoint additional members to the court who would support him and his legislation - but the public didn't support it - and he backed off his plan.

Realistically, I don't in the foreseeable future, see any president out and out refusing to obey a court decision - what they typically would do is pass a similar law with a different legal justification and hope it isn't overturned - (the disclose act - Chicago's new gun laws - though that’s a mayor), say in word they support the law/ruling but do little to actually enforce it (immigration law), and/or let the enforcement of it suffocate under layer after layer of bureaucracy, red tape, and lack of funding.

roy reali · July 20, 2010, 07:44 AM

I don't see this administration doing much about guns either way. If it does, it won't be until after 2012.

ISC · July 20, 2010, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueTrain

You could just as easily started the thread by saying the animosity of the John Roberts Supreme Court towards the Obama Administration.

Roberts didn't make a televised speech infront of both houses of congress criticizing the executive branch. That was a shocking first and extreme breach of protocol and tradition.

BlueTrain · July 20, 2010, 09:49 AM

Tradition is merely what we did last year. History is what has been happening all along. There have been fights on the floor of the house and at one time it was common for them to carry guns in the chamber. These have been pretty tame times of late. However, I take it that you are not implying that the Supreme Court is never above criticism. It certainly didn't used to be.

ISC · July 20, 2010, 10:30 AM

I'm saying that openly citicizing another branch of government during a constitutionally madated public speech is a glaring sign of animosity.

If Roberts had called out the President using derisive language in one of his decisions I would acknowledge that he was displaying animosity toward the President.
I hate to play the "who started it" finger pointing game, but it seems pretty clear that it is not the Supreme Court that has been disrespectful of the other branches of government.

Carrying this a step further, the constitutional role of the Senate is to advise and consent. The senate has increasingly played the role of bullying and demanding that nominated justices have an activist ideology or at least be open to the concept of reinterpreting the costitution along ideolgical lines rather than the original intent of the writers of the constitution.

The big concern for me in this regard is that a revisionist minded president in concert with a revisionist minded congress might decided that the constitutional checks and balances don't apply to them or a specific ruling.

Slamfire · July 20, 2010, 10:34 AM

Those in charge do what they want to do.

The Law is just words.

The Constitution is just a bunch of ink on parchment.

Glenn E. Meyer · July 20, 2010, 10:36 AM

Ok - if we are talking about the actions of a particular individual through one's partisan's eyes - then it isn't an L and CR issue.

Yeah, members of the court and the Administration and Congress all are good or bad at time.

So, isn't the answer simply that the Congress impeaches, tries and removes the President? Or do we want hint about revolution - a no-no for the list.

I'm getting bored with this thread's direction.

Glenn

armoredman · July 20, 2010, 10:43 AM

To both keep this firearm oriented, AND in theme, you have only to look at the Lopez decision, which invalidated the 1000 foot firearm/school rule passed under the infamous commerce clause. Congress merely adjusted the law to fit the new look, and re passed it. I haven't heard of anyone fighting it again.

July 19, 2010, 10:39 AM	#26
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	You could just as easily started the thread by saying the animosity of the John Roberts Supreme Court towards the Obama Administration. And besides, one was elected, the other appointed. Maybe the supreme court vacancies should be filled by election, too. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

July 19, 2010, 11:23 AM	#27
sousana Senior Member Join Date: August 31, 2001 Location: Virginia Posts: 193	Then the justices would be obligated to supporters who donate money to their election campaigns, justices who would then have to recuse themselves should they face a case in which their supporter has an interest in. Honorable men and women would then be obligated to stand up to their campain promises. What kind of promises would YOU make for an appointment to a lifelong bench where history can be made on any given case? __________________ NRA Life Member: 45 years 1911 Shooter/Owner: 40 Years ‎לפעמים אדם עונה גורלו על הכביש הוא לקח כדי למנוע אותו. (Sometimes a man can meet his destiny on the road he chooses to avoid it)

July 20, 2010, 07:44 AM	#29
roy reali Senior Member Join Date: August 23, 2005 Posts: 3,248	Not Yet I don't see this administration doing much about guns either way. If it does, it won't be until after 2012.

July 20, 2010, 09:49 AM	#31
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	Tradition is merely what we did last year. History is what has been happening all along. There have been fights on the floor of the house and at one time it was common for them to carry guns in the chamber. These have been pretty tame times of late. However, I take it that you are not implying that the Supreme Court is never above criticism. It certainly didn't used to be. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

July 20, 2010, 10:34 AM	#33
Slamfire Senior Member Join Date: May 27, 2007 Posts: 5,261	Those in charge do what they want to do. The Law is just words. The Constitution is just a bunch of ink on parchment. __________________ If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading.

July 19, 2010, 01:40 PM	#28
mack59 Senior Member Join Date: July 14, 2004 Posts: 447	Historically - Andrew Jackson ignored the USSC and suffered no consequence as a result. I believe he said something to the effect that, well the court has made their decision, now let them enforce it. FDR - didn't like the court when it ruled parts of his new deal unconstitutional and he obeyed the court but then tried to pack it by trying to appoint additional members to the court who would support him and his legislation - but the public didn't support it - and he backed off his plan. Realistically, I don't in the foreseeable future, see any president out and out refusing to obey a court decision - what they typically would do is pass a similar law with a different legal justification and hope it isn't overturned - (the disclose act - Chicago's new gun laws - though that’s a mayor), say in word they support the law/ruling but do little to actually enforce it (immigration law), and/or let the enforcement of it suffocate under layer after layer of bureaucracy, red tape, and lack of funding.

July 20, 2010, 10:30 AM	#32
ISC Junior member Join Date: August 5, 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 1,982	I'm saying that openly citicizing another branch of government during a constitutionally madated public speech is a glaring sign of animosity. If Roberts had called out the President using derisive language in one of his decisions I would acknowledge that he was displaying animosity toward the President. I hate to play the "who started it" finger pointing game, but it seems pretty clear that it is not the Supreme Court that has been disrespectful of the other branches of government. Carrying this a step further, the constitutional role of the Senate is to advise and consent. The senate has increasingly played the role of bullying and demanding that nominated justices have an activist ideology or at least be open to the concept of reinterpreting the costitution along ideolgical lines rather than the original intent of the writers of the constitution. The big concern for me in this regard is that a revisionist minded president in concert with a revisionist minded congress might decided that the constitutional checks and balances don't apply to them or a specific ruling.

July 20, 2010, 10:36 AM	#34
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Ok - if we are talking about the actions of a particular individual through one's partisan's eyes - then it isn't an L and CR issue. Yeah, members of the court and the Administration and Congress all are good or bad at time. So, isn't the answer simply that the Congress impeaches, tries and removes the President? Or do we want hint about revolution - a no-no for the list. I'm getting bored with this thread's direction. Glenn __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

July 20, 2010, 10:43 AM	#35
armoredman Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 5,299	To both keep this firearm oriented, AND in theme, you have only to look at the Lopez decision, which invalidated the 1000 foot firearm/school rule passed under the infamous commerce clause. Congress merely adjusted the law to fit the new look, and re passed it. I haven't heard of anyone fighting it again.