Would you support Trump if he ignored an SC decision?

[Pommer]

This sounds absurd ! Find a law to get away with it????? Methinks you try to hard to defend the last presidential imposter.

I’m sorry.
A politician‘s only “job” is to get stuff for his constituents and his Party’s constituents.

Whether that stuff is money, goods, services, expanded rights, (whatever), they hold office, to get their constituents’ will done within the existing Laws or make new Laws that brings their constituents closer to a “more perfect Union”.

The “problem” (such as it is), is that the voters are no longer the “constituents”.
Voters are the “game”.

 

[Bradskii]

This sounds absurd ! Find a law to get away with it????? Methinks you try to hard to defend the last presidential imposter.

President: 'I want to do N and I'm going to use ABC to do it.'
SC: 'You can't use ABC to do it.'

Pause at this point for an explanation of what the SC just said. It said that the president can't use ABC. It did not say that you can't do N. I hope that's quite clear.

President: 'Fair enough. I still want to do N and I'll use XYZ instead'
SC: '..........'

Pause again for an explanation. The SC has no comment this time because it has no objection to the president using XYZ to do N.

Current president: 'I want to do N and I'm going to use ABC to do it'
SC: 'You can't use ABC to do it.'
Current president: 'Don't care. I'm going to use ABC anyway'.

That's a hypothetical. But it's pretty much what Vance is beginning to propose. In the first example there was a way to get what was wanted whilst accepting the decision of the SC. No problem.

In the second example, to get what was wanted, the SC was ignored. Big problem.

 

[QvQ]

In the second example, to get what was wanted, the SC was ignored. Big problem.

The cases, so far, are in very low level Courts.
As the question is Constitutional, most the them will go to the Supreme Court
Hypothetically, the current President could win
This puzzle could have many other solutions than simply, yes or no.
I very seriously doubt, with the amount of fraud already exposed, that the Courts and Congress are simply going to lock Trump out, tell him to sit down and shut up.
I think the Congress especially is going to recognize the seriousnes of this problem as there is always another election. Allowing and covering up blatant fraud, waste abuse is going to play against them in the political ads in the Conressmens home districts.
Trump is not the probllem. That $7 Trillion budget and borrowing money to pay the interest on the debt is.
People are wondering where is all that money going and Musk has told a tale.

 

[Bradskii]

The cases, so far, are in very low level Courts.
As the question is Constitutional, most the them will go to the Supreme Court
Hypothetically, the current President could win

The hypothetical problem is a situation where he doesn't win. But ignores the ruling. In which case, the SC isn't worth having. Why would anyone even suggest that we could go there?

 

[Pommer]

The cases, so far, are in very low level Courts.
As the question is Constitutional, most the them will go to the Supreme Court
Hypothetically, the current President could win
This puzzle could have many other solutions than simply, yes or no.
I very seriously doubt, with the amount of fraud already exposed, that the Courts and Congress are simply going to lock Trump out, tell him to sit down and shut up.
I think the Congress especially is going to recognize the seriousnes of this problem as there is always another election. Allowing and covering up blatant fraud, waste abuse is going to play against them in the political ads in the Conressmens home districts.
Trump is not the probllem. That $7 Trillion budget and borrowing money to pay the interest on the debt is.
People are wondering where is all that money going and Musk has told a tale.

I think that Elon will be “old news” by Easter.

 

[QvQ]

Why would anyone even suggest that we could go there?

It is a mere hypothetical
Applied to what actual facts there are, bureaucracy which is supported by one party must either be reformed or the country will fail.
Why would anyone even suggest we could go there?
As I said, Trump is not the problem. The problem is an entrenched bureaucracy. Musk is just a messenger and what good to kill the messenger?

 

[Pommer]

The hypothetical problem is a situation where he doesn't win. But ignores the ruling. In which case, the SC isn't worth having. Why would anyone even suggest that we could go there?

Bold new legal ground, untrodden by lesser mortals!
Yeehah!

 

[Bradskii]

It is a mere hypothetical
Applied to what actual facts there are, bureaucracy...

This isn't a thread about whether bureaucracy spending should be curtailed. It's about whether someone would support a president ignoring the SC.

 

[Pommer]

This isn't a thread about whether bureaucracy spending should be curtailed. It's about whether someone would support a president ignoring the SC.

Hypotheticals never stay where you start them.

 

[QvQ]

It's about whether someone would support a president ignoring the SC.

Hypothetically, I would say no
But if it were ever a reality, quien sabe?

However I suspect this is not hypothetical at all.
So, hypothetically, the underlying facts such as the bureaucracy are going to determine the play, aye?

 

[Bradskii]

Hypothetically, I would say no
But if it were ever a reality, quien sabe?

However I suspect this is not hypothetical at all.
Then the underlying facts are going to determine the play, aye?

No. The underlying facts are irrelevant. If the SC is ignored, for whatever reason, then the court ceases to have any meaning. One cannot choose whether to accept their verdict or not. It's not called the Supreme Court for nothing.

 

[Pommer]

No. The underlying facts are irrelevant. If the SC is ignored, for whatever reason, then the court ceases to have any meaning. One cannot choose whether to accept their verdict or not. It's not called the Supreme Court for nothing.

You should clarify that “accept” ≠ “agree with”.

 

[7thKeeper]

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.

You would recall wrong then. He was told he couldn't do it in a particular way and his administration didn't do it that way then, but through a different route. The issue wasn't the loan forgiveness itself but how it was being done.

 

[Bradskii]

You should clarify that “accept” ≠ “agree with”.

The Dred Scott decision was mentioned upstream. Even a decision as obviously wrong as that (as most people would agree) must be accepted. You can certainly protest against the decision. But you cannot simply choose to ignore it.

 

[Pommer]

The Dred Scott decision was mentioned upstream. Even a decision as obviously wrong as that (as most people would agree) must be accepted. You can certainly protest against the decision. But you cannot simply choose to ignore it.

We did live under it until the 14th Amendment repudiated the Taney decision.

 

[QvQ]

We did live under it until the 14th Amendment repudiated the Taney decision.

600,000 - 850,000 died, as in "did not live under it" between Dredd Scott and repudiation of Taney,

 

[Bradskii]

We did live under it until the 14th Amendment repudiated the Taney decision.

As it should be.

 

[Postvieww]

The hypothetical problem is a situation where he doesn't win. But ignores the ruling. In which case, the SC isn't worth having. Why would anyone even suggest that we could go there?

The problem is the hypothetical used here because liberals have nothing justifiable to go against Trump. A liberal Obama appointed judge who made a ruling at 1 AM and was the on call emergency judge shopped by the complainant without allowing the White House lawyers to even address the complaint has violated his sworn oath to be non political and should be impeached. Since he was the on call judge the case has already been handed of to a judge who is with unusual speed trying to bring the case to a conclusion. Hypothetically some judges are actually partisan dirt bags not adhering to the constitution. It is a mistake to suggest that just because some judge ruled it is legitimate.

 

[Postvieww]

Dems Turn To Activist Judges To Defy Trump This is the problem. Nothing here is legitimate justice at work. It is simply partisan lawfare by corrupt liberal judges to combat the will of the people in the last election.

 

[stevil]

This is an interesting thread, because Trump's administration is so far defying a court order. The judge has just issued a warning that defying can result in criminal contempt.

However, of course, since the AG of the DOJ is beholden to Trump, who is it that is going to enforce the criminal contempt charge?
1. Trump is immune from the law
2. Trump can just pardon all his accomplices
3. The head of the DOJ is Trump's lackey.