Would you support Trump if he ignored an SC decision?

[Always in His Presence]

You are free to give an opinion on that.

My opinion is that it is a hypothetical based on an extreme bias towards our President that has been fomented for almost a decade and is causing the left to lose popularity greater than the have ever experienced in their history.

 

[Hammster]

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?

Such as…

 

[Bradskii]

My opinion is that it is a hypothetical...

Yes, it is. But hey, I know. Let's change it so that you can answer it. Would you support a Democratic president disobeying an SC decision? I'm going to assume that your answer wouldn't be based on the politics of the matter (I mean, surely not!) and would then apply to any president.

By the way, don't tell anyone this, but there's a subtext here. It's that some people expect Trump supporters to do anything except answer the question. Thereby (and you'll laugh when I tell you) telling us what we wanted to know anyway! You'd think that they'd avoid the thread because of that, but...there you go.

 

[Bradskii]

Such as…

Anything. Literally anything. But we have had a side discussion that suggested that if you did indeed support what is effectively contempt of court (not sure if it would be civil or criminal) then you are free to do so but...you would do so with an acknowledgement and acceptance that you'd be punished for it. It would effectively be a protest vote against the decision.

But feel free to hypothesise to your heart's content.

 

[QvQ]

But we have had a side discussion that suggested that if you did indeed support what is effectively contempt of court (not sure if it would be civil or criminal) then you are free to do so but...you would do so with an acknowledgement and acceptance that you'd be punished for it. It would effectively be a protest vote against the decision.

"No fixed term of incarceration or maximum fine is set in a remedial contempt of court order. Incarceration for indirect remedial contempt of court can continue until the matter to be compelled is moot, or until the person incarcerated no longer has the capacity to obey the court order."

It is entirely at the discretion of the Court.
That second part, "until the person incarcerated no longer has the capacity to obey the court order"
That sounds ominous...

 

[Bradskii]

"No fixed term of incarceration or maximum fine is set in a remedial contempt of court order. Incarceration for indirect remedial contempt of court can continue until the matter to be compelled is moot, or until the person incarcerated no longer has the capacity to obey the court order."

It is entirely at the discretion of the Court.
That second part, "until the person incarcerated no longer has the capacity to obey the court order"
That sounds ominous...

I have read that, for example, if a president were to issue an order that no-one could travel interstate on a Sunday and the SC said that no, that's unconstitutional, then they would likely hold anyone preventing a person crossing a state line as being in contempt. Not necessarily the person who issued the order - the president. Maybe there's a fine legal distinction between someone issuing an order and someone carrying it out.

 

[QvQ]

Not necessarily the person who issued the order - the president. Maybe there's a fine legal distinction between someone issuing an order and someone carrying it out.

I believe that Biden could have been held in contempt if he ordered the cancellation of student loans after the SC decision even if it were an agency who carried it out.

If a President had a "no interstate travel on Sunday Order" and the SC struck that down, the President would be in Contempt if he ordered police to enforce it after the SC decision.
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

So if Biden had instructed the Agency to cancel the student loans, he would be in contempt. The agency would not have the authority to carry out a Presidential order rescinded by the SC so the agency cancellation would be illegal as in against the Law but not necessarily Contempt.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Week three and we are talking impeachment? What took so long?

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

 

[Bradskii]

I believe that Biden could have been held in contempt if he ordered the cancellation of student loans after the SC decision even if it were an agency who carried it out.

If a President had a "no interstate travel on Sunday Order" and the SC struck that down, the President would be in Contempt if he ordered police to enforce it after the SC decision.
So it would be contempt of court for the President for ordering enforcement.

That seems logical to me. But from here: What Will Happen If President Trump Ignores a Court Order

'Any president defying the courts could cause a constitutional crisis.

"If the president were to tell [federal employees] to disobey a court order, then presumably the court would hold those officers in contempt," Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA, told ATTN:.

"They could, possibly, even hold President Trump in contempt," Winkler said. "It's not clear exactly how that would work."

 

[Diamond72]

You're talking about the same Supreme Court that issued the Dred Scott decision, that said negroes can't be citizens?

It is considered offensive to use the word: "negro".

 

[QvQ]

"They could, possibly, even hold President Trump in contempt," Winkler said. "It's not clear exactly how that would work."

Jackson was not held in contempt. He did not positively enforce the SC decision nor did he order anyone to do anything. He simply did nothing and defied the Court, telling them to enforce it
Yes, if a police officer, on his own hook, decided to disobey a court order, he could be guilty of contempt.
Police are Officers of the Court. So he probably be guilty of Contempt if he obeyed anyone ordering anything contravening the Court.

You know, that link you posted is standard Lawfare stuff, and hypothetical to boot.
Every thing Trump does, the Democrats find a friendly Judge who turns it in to a Federal case.
Or they try to turn the Congress into a circus of impeachent hearings.
This is going to backfire big time on the Democrats as stopping Trump from stopping Government Fraud is going to raise some interesting questions about why the democrats want to allow fraud? Why are the Dems wasting our money and are trying to conceal the waste?

Then there is California where Newsom just signed a law for $50 million for Lawfare against Trump. This is in a State devastated by wild fires and a budget deficit of $55 Billion.

This is standard Lawfare, looking for something to Get Trump.
Using the Courts for political purposes. The amount of Lawfare seems to be "throw it all against the wall and see what sticks."
Anything Trump says or does is immediately a Constitutional Crisis, Lawfare at it's finest.
The American people are weary unto death with the Democratic Party, LawFare. Favorable rating 32% and they aren't going to gain any points using Lawfare to protect us from the "Mean Orange Man"

 

[Chesterton]

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.

Yes I have the same view. Our founding fathers said things like "give me liberty or give me death", and "if we don't hang together we'll all hang separately". There can be consequences for doing the right thing.

 

[Chesterton]

It is considered offensive to use the word: "negro".

You're missing the point. That's the word the chief justice of the Supreme Court used.

 

[Diamond72]

the word the chief justice of the Supreme Court used.

In 1857. Things have changed a lot sense then.

 

[JSRG]

Jackson was not held in contempt. He did not positively enforce the SC decision nor did he order anyone to do anything. He simply did nothing and defied the Court, telling them to enforce it

As I noted before, Jackson wasn't told to do anything by the Court, so him doing nothing wasn't an act of defiance.

Georgia certainly chose to defy the order. But Jackson wasn't ever asked to do anything about it by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court went into recess after the decision and by the time they came back (at which point they might have told Jackson to do something about the issue) the whole thing got resolved anyway by Georgia repealing the law that was the cause of the problem and letting the imprisoned missionaries go.

 

[QvQ]

As I noted before, Jackson wasn't told to do anything by the Court, so him doing nothing wasn't an act of defiance.

Jackson's famous quote "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it," was defiance and contempt.
Jackson sent troops to enforce that Georgia law that had been struck down by the Courts
Sending troop is not quite "doing nothing."

 

[Chesterton]

In 1857. Things have changed a lot sense then.

There's a reason threads are called threads. It's always helpful to follow the thread, you know, follow the thoughts.

 

[Bradskii]

Every thing Trump does, the Democrats find a friendly Judge who turns it in to a Federal case.

That's not what the thread is for. There are plenty of places where you can complain about the Dems. Takke it elsewhere.

 

[JSRG]

Jackson's famous quote "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it," was defiance and contempt.

As I pointed out in the very post you were responding to, that quote is most likely apocryphal.

Jackson sent troops to enforce that Georgia law that had been struck down by the Courts
Sending troop is not quite "doing nothing."

I do not believe Jackson had troops enforce the Georgia law at all. He may have sent in (or at least planned to send in) troops to South Carolina because of the Nullification Crisis, but that was a separate issue.

Why would Jackson even need to send in federal troops to "enforce" the law? Enforcing it just meant keeping the two people who were convicted under the law (Worcester and Butler) in prison; you don't need federal troops to do that unless maybe there's a lot of people trying to spring them out. Am I missing something here?

 

[QvQ]

Am I missing something here?

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.