Would you support Trump if he ignored an SC decision?

[HarleyER]

The title says it all.

Apparently...he could. Two questions then arise:

1. Would he? And I'm afraid that I personally think the answer to that is yes.
2. Would you support him in doing so?

From what I have read, the only recourse is impeachment. So c'mon, guys. This is where the rubber hits the road. How far do you follow this guy?

Did you support the Democrats when Joe Biden ignored the Supreme Court and paid off $175 billion dollars in student loans? I don't recall anyone screaming for impeachment then.

Democrats want to have it both ways.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Dude. The articles have already been filed. Keep up.

It is not hard to keep up with garbage. They filed articles 8 times his last term along with 900 calls for investigation and 1,200 inquiries.

The only difference is that right now, they are not in power anywhere.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

The Supreme Court already ruled that President Trump doesn't have to follow Supreme Court rulings while President Trump is in office.

 

[RDKirk]

The Supreme Court already ruled that President Trump doesn't have to follow Supreme Court rulings while President Trump is in office.

Essentially.

 

[RDKirk]

I recall Joe Biden and his administration ignoring SCOTUS rulings regarding the Biden college loan forgiveness schemes of his administration. I'm pretty sure that American liberals supported Biden doing that.

No, they didn't ignore them at all. They did try to find workarounds and in fact found none. The only loans that were "forgiven" were either loans that the courts had already determined were criminally fraudulent or loans that were already supposed to be forgiven because of pre-arranged agreement (such as teaching in a depressed community). Those were a tiny minority of loans outstanding.

 

[RDKirk]

I thought as I was typing out the title of the thread that this would be along the lines of the usual responses that it would get. But anyway...

I support people's right to disobey any ruling that a court might make. On principle. And I would do so myself. But I would expect to be punished for my actions and I would disobey any ruling with full expectation of the consequences. In fact I would disobey the ruling with a view to being punished to highlight my position. Not simply to avoid compliance.

Maybe you have the same view. I don't know yet.

That's how old-school Civil Rights activism worked.

 

[RDKirk]

I must admit that I don't know what the technical term might be. The SC doesn't make laws, it only interprets them. So he's not breaking a law. Maybe someone with more legal knowledge can help us out here.

The Supreme Court interprets laws according to the intent of the legislators and the Constitution. The president, supposedly, has only the power to execute the laws as intended by the legislators and in accordance with the Constitution. So, supposedly the President is checked by the Supreme Court.

But this president won't be checked by this Supreme Court.

 

[RDKirk]

So it would be contempt of court for the President for ordering enforcement.
If the President did or did not so order and a police officer stopped an interstate traveler then the police officer would be in violation of a host of other laws, such as unlawful arrest but not necessarily contempt. Unless the officer stated he was flaunting the Courts authority either as ordered by the President or on his own hook.
The police are Officers of the Court. They obey the Court first

US Marshals and county sheriffs are officers of the court. Police departments (including the FBI) are officers of their executive branches.

 

[Diamond72]

follow the thoughts.

My brain is defunct. I do not know if I am able to do that. My brother said I have always been this way so they do not attribute it to when the doctors revived and resuscitated me.

 

[Diamond72]

So, supposedly the President is checked by the Supreme Court.

Bidden was very liberal and Trump is very conservative. Right now the gov and the court is about half and half. Obama did not want Harris but his wife did. She just did not have the support that the liberals needed to get a liberal into office. So now we have a conservative administration.

The American Revolution was a significant act of rebellion against what was seen as oppressive governance by the British Crown. The founding principles of the United States were heavily influenced by Enlightenment ideas, which emphasized individual liberty, democracy, and the right to self-governance.

Now people like Trump and Musk feel Washington is an oppressive system. The phrase "weaponized court system" typically refers to the use of the judicial system to achieve political ends rather than to uphold justice impartially. This can involve using legal actions, investigations, or prosecutions to target political opponents, suppress dissent, or advance a particular agenda.

 

[durangodawood]

Would you support Trump if he ignored an SC decision?

I would have thought this a very easy question to answer in principle.

If presidents can go their own way unchecked and unbalanced by the other co-equal branches of govt, then we no longer have a constitutional republic.

If people are ok with that, then they can answer "yes" to the thread title question.

 

[RileyG]

The title says it all.

Apparently...he could. Two questions then arise:

1. Would he? And I'm afraid that I personally think the answer to that is yes.
2. Would you support him in doing so?

From what I have read, the only recourse is impeachment. So c'mon, guys. This is where the rubber hits the road. How far do you follow this guy?

No.

 

[RileyG]

The Supreme Court already ruled that President Trump doesn't have to follow Supreme Court rulings while President Trump is in office.

What?!?!?!!

 

[JSRG]

Worchester v Georgia 1832
Indian Removal Act 1830
"However, the subsequent Worcester v. Georgia decision has had enduring significance. It remains a cornerstone of legal arguments asserting tribal sovereignty and the federal government’s obligation to honor treaties."

Jackson did send troops to remove the Indians. He did defy the Court, although the "Marshal made the decision, let him enforce it, " I can't find any evidence of publication before the 1860's so it may be apocryphal, which means if it isn't true, it should be.

Worcester v. Georgia wasn't about the Indian Removal Act or the removal of Indians. So to claim this was defiance of the Court doesn't make much sense.

Here are the facts of the case as I understand them.

Worcester v. Georgia was concerning a Georgia law that prohibited non-Native Americans from being on Native American land without a license granted by Georgia. Some missionaries (including Worcester) who were convicted under the law challenged it, and it ended up going to the Supreme Court who said that states like Georgia didn't have authority in Indian affairs--which was the job of the federal government--and thus a law like that was unconstitutional. Thus the convictions were void because the Georgia law was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court then went into recess until the next year. Georgia decided to ignore the ruling and refused to release the convicted people. Andrew Jackson was not asked or ordered to enforce the court's ruling by the Supreme Court. There are some reasons to believe that he would have refused had the Supreme Court told him to, but at any rate they didn't so it's speculative. Eventually--before the Supreme Court ended up reconvening--Georgia, under some pressure, managed to work out a compromise where they repealed the law and let Worcester go free; Georgia didn't formally acquiesce to the decision but functionally acknowledged it.

None of this had anything to do with the Indian Removal Act or removal of Indians in general.

 

[RDKirk]

What?!?!?!!

The Court seems to have ruled that actions taken by the president in official capacity are immune from criminalization.

 

[QvQ]

US Marshals and county sheriffs are officers of the court. Police departments (including the FBI) are officers of their executive branches.

Police are Officers of the Court.
The police enforce the law passed by the Legislature
When a Police Officer arrests a person for breaking a law, he doesn't take that person for trial before the city council.
The person is remanded to the Custody of the Court.
If the Court issues a Warrant the Police Officers of the Court serve that warrant.
Because of Habeas Corpus all legal matters must be brought before the Court.
If the Polilce are involved, you are talking to the Court.
It is the legislative branch that passes the laws and pays the salaries of the Officers of the Court
But the power of the police and ultimately the Boss is the Court.

Habeas Corpus, The Great Writ
Back in the Merry Old England, the local Nobleman (law maker and police payer) could detain a person
And it was entirely up to the Nobleman for how long, under what conditions and what penalties imposed
The Magna Carta established Writ of Habeas Corpus
Any person taken into custody by the King's men had to be taken in front of a Magistrate (Judiciary)
The Magistrate then had the power to adjudicate the Law and impose penalties.
Therefore the police who arrest and detain people are Officers of the Court.
The police were no longer under command of the Nobleman (Legislature)The police are under the command of the Magistrate (Courts)

 

[RDKirk]

Police are Officers of the Court.
The police enforce the law passed by the Legislature
When a Police Officer arrests a person for breaking a law, he doesn't take that person to see the mayor.
The person is remanded to the Custody of the Court.
If the Court issues a Warrant the Police Officers of the Court serve that warrant.
Because of Habeas Corpus all legal matters must be brought before the Court.
If the Polilce are involved, you are talking to the Court.
It is the legislative branch that passes the laws and pays the salaries of the Officers of the Court
But the power of the police and ultimately the Boss is the Court.

Habeas Corpus, The Great Writ
Back in the Merry Okd England, the local Nobleman (law maker and police payer) could detain a person
And it was entirely up to the Nobleman for how long, under what conditions and what penalties imposed
The Magna Carta established Writ of Habeas Corpus
Any person taken into custody by the King's men had to be taken in front of a Magistrate (Judiciary)
The Magistrate then had the power to adjudicate the Law and impose penalties.
Therefore the police who arrest and detain people are Officers of the Court.
The police no longer answered to the Nobleman (Legislature)The police answered to the Magistrate (Courts)

It's not that simple.

 

[QvQ]

None of this had anything to do with the Indian Removal Act or removal of Indians in general

Then under what law did Jackson send troops to remove the Indians from Georgia?
IT was the second Worchester v Georgia in 1832 that Jackson flaunted.

 

[QvQ]

It's not that simple.

Yes, it is
The FBI enforce the Orders of the Executive or the Laws of the legislature.

But the FBI is under the command of the Courts.
The FBI has to obtain a warrant,
Remand any detainees to the custody of the Court
And must appear before the Judge to give evidence.

The FBI has no authority to make laws. (Legislative)
The FBI merely enforces the law (enacted by elected Executive or Legislature)
As Officers of the Court
The Power of Law Enforcement is Judicial (Courts)

All law enforcment are Officers of the Court, under the Jurisdication thereof.
The Magna Carta, Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Note: Customs, Border Patrol are under the Jurisdiction of the Military (Executive)

 

[Bradskii]

Did you support the Democrats when Joe Biden ignored the Supreme Court and paid off $175 billion dollars in student loans? I don't recall anyone screaming for impeachment then.

Democrats want to have it both ways.

Firstly, this isn't about Biden. Secondly, he revised the scheme so that it didn't contradict the SP decision. Thirdly, your are using schoolyard arguments ('Sir, he did it sir, so why can't I') and that doesn't fly. And fourthly, you avoided answering the question. Which is, a I said upstream, an answer in itself.

Thanks for your input.