What actual power to implement a decision does the court have?

[funksouljon]

For the lawyers and folks who stayed at a Holiday Inn...

The court makes a decision, produce paperwork with directives, and then what? Doesn't the executive branch do the work? If the executive branch just ignores the directive, then what? What actual power to make physical changes does the judicial actually have? To tell them again in a more stern voice?


If this has been asked / discussed, pepsi away. (and provide a link)

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

I think just contempt of court. Or, one would be concerned about ticking off a judge and have other aspects of the proceeding go against you.

But to your point, the last 10 years have shown the fragility of the system when facing people with means and absolutely no ethics or shame.

 

[Colonoscopy]

Ultimately... federal marshals or hefty fines, I believe.

 

[stout1]

I think just contempt of court. Or, one would be concerned about ticking off a judge and have other aspects of the proceeding go against you.

But to your point, the last 10 years have shown the fragility of the system when facing people with means and absolutely no ethics or shame.

Yes. The idea that we abided by the law as part of our shared social contract was the backbone of the operation. But we have a group of people that don't care about that, believe it doesn't apply to them, or both.

 

[Urohawk]

I'm to the point that I might start buying weapons and bullets. I think maga is going to drag us into a civil war.

 

[Finance85]

The power of a federal court is theoretically limited to Constitutional issues. IMO, that's a 2 fold test. Test 1 is if the action is constitutional on its face, e.g., meets strict Constitutional muster. Test 2 is based on if the action is lawful considering the separation of powers. Test 2 is a little tricky because a lot of laws are probably unconstitutional, but have never been tested as such because of federal court rules on standing, and federal court rules on direct harm. What I mean by that is that Congress may pass a budget requiring spending, and that spending may be earmarked, or it may be discretionary based on a purpose, with discretion given to the Executive branch based on the purpose. The latter is where there tends to be a dispute. That's where the Chevron rule first came into play, and was later expanded.

This has become more muddled in the last month because, beginning in the 1960's, Congress increasingly ceded power to the Executive by giving authority to decide how to spend money to the Executive. For example, Congress would allocate $1B to the DoE to develop ways to promote green energy. DoE would have their employees decide how to do this, and ultimately give a grant to a company like Solaris, who ends up going bankrupt. Some of the money would get spent, and some of the money would just sit in the bank as an allocated fund, waiting for the POTUS to need it to fund a political purpose. Nobody would ever challenge how the money was ultimately used because of the 2 aforementioned federal court rules.

Federal Court Judges have immense power, and they know it. They, like most any good lawyer, can argue both sides of most legal arguments. A few will be politically partisan, and that's where the problem lies.

 

[DooBi]

Yes. The idea that we abided by the law as part of our shared social contract was the backbone of the operation. But we have a group of people that don't care abotu that. believe it doesn't apply to them, or both.

Are you talking about the people vandalizing and destroying other people's property?

 

[Colonoscopy]

I'm to the point that I might start buying weapons and bullets. I think maga is going to drag us into a civil war.

Decent chance the civil war is between MAGAs... good enough chance they'll piss off that socio-economic demographic

 

[Moral]

Are you talking about the people vandalizing and destroying other people's property?

Do you think that is what he is talking about about?

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

Do you think that is what he is talking about about?

Never fails

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

The power of a federal court is theoretically limited to Constitutional issues.

There’s a lot more than that, though.

 

[goldmom]

Do you think that is what he is talking about about?

Maybe a growing disrespect for the laws of a society in general.
Those who deliberately damage property that doesn’t belong to them would be included in that larger picture. Why would they be excused?

 

[SIXERS24]

Andrew Jackson one of the earliest Democrats just ignored the Supreme Court and nothing happened.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

Maybe a growing disrespect for the laws of a society in general.
Those who deliberately damage property that doesn’t belong to them would be included in that larger picture. Why would they be excused?

Criminals wouldn’t be covered in the OP.

OP was asking about parties ignoring court orders and instructions in civil cases.

 

[Finance85]

There’s a lot more than that, though.

For example?

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

For example?

Civil disputes, for one. Most times no constitutional issues involved.

 

[funksouljon]

Criminals wouldn’t be covered in the OP.

OP was asking about parties ignoring court orders and instructions in civil cases.

Well, it starts civil, yes. But, for WH officials (as an example) who ignore a civil ruling, then the contempt of court comes into play. That converts to a criminal contempt sometimes. But again, local law enforcement would enforce general failure to appear, etc... maybe.. but generally it is federal agents when the discussion flips to "bring his ass into my court". Some other agency or Federal Marshals? To date they seem to be enforcing the Exec decrees, and their leadership up ties directly to the Exec branch, so what other agents? So in the beginning it is civil disputes as we are seeing right now, but what about when the court says "I gave you a deadline, you missed, you are now in contempt" ? IMO that is a very near term series of events.

Again, when the decision and decree is more than just "you must stop", who actually enforces? Or is this just a stop or I will tell you to stop?

 

[sober_teacher]

Andrew Jackson one of the earliest Democrats just ignored the Supreme Court and nothing happened.

Thankfully something that hasn't been repeated very often.

 

[KFsdisciple]

I'm to the point that I might start buying weapons and bullets. I think maga is going to drag us into a civil war.

Good luck getting past all the red flag laws... just take out your nose rings and dye your hair back to a normal color and you might squeeze through.

 

[KFsdisciple]

Well, it starts civil, yes. But, for WH officials (as an example) who ignore a civil ruling, then the contempt of court comes into play. That converts to a criminal contempt sometimes. But again, local law enforcement would enforce general failure to appear, etc... maybe.. but generally it is federal agents when the discussion flips to "bring his ass into my court". Some other agency or Federal Marshals? To date they seem to be enforcing the Exec decrees, and their leadership up ties directly to the Exec branch, so what other agents? So in the beginning it is civil disputes as we are seeing right now, but what about when the court says "I gave you a deadline, you missed, you are now in contempt" ? IMO that is a very near term series of events.

Again, when the decision and decree is more than just "you must stop", who actually enforces? Or is this just a stop or I will tell you to stop?

For a commoner in a civil ruling, they could have your wages garnished, your property/assets liquidated. Put leans on your property, and failure to comply would probably end up in jail time on top of it.

If you're the president who the supreme court ruled has immunity for all official acts, this is a power dynamic I'm very interested to see play out.

Here's a fictional scenario: The trump admin. throws a bunch of criminal terrorists on a plane and flies them off to another country. Some judge says "wait you can't do that, turn the plane around and bring those undocumented criminals back here right now."

The Trump admin says "Ummm yes we have the authority to do what we did, here's the law we're following, and the powers granted by the constitution to do it." The judge says my ruling is final, you can appeal, but in the meantime you're in contempt of court.

Now the question is, what happens next? Can a sitting president be charged with contempt of court? Does the case just get kicked to the appeals? Does the USSC jump in and rule?

 

[lucas80]

Maybe a growing disrespect for the laws of a society in general.
Those who deliberately damage property that doesn’t belong to them would be included in that larger picture. Why would they be excused?

Link to property crimes going unpunished when adjudicated?
We are talking about the executive branch ignoring the judicial. But, sure, MAGA away.

 

[lucas80]

I hope judges start to throw DoJ lawyers in jail for ignoring their orders. Written or oral, since Pam Bondi thinks there is a difference in legitimacy.

 

[jamesvanderwulf]

Link to property crimes going unpunished when adjudicated?
We are talking about the executive branch ignoring the judicial. But, sure, MAGA away.

Who ended up picking up the tab for the million dollar plus property damage to the Old Capital, Kinnick and assorted city property during the BLM riots?

 

[funksouljon]

For a commoner in a civil ruling, they could have your wages garnished, your property/assets liquidated. Put leans on your property, and failure to comply would probably end up in jail time on top of it.

If you're the president who the supreme court ruled has immunity for all official acts, this is a power dynamic I'm very interested to see play out.

Here's a fictional scenario: The trump admin. throws a bunch of criminal terrorists on a plane and flies them off to another country. Some judge says "wait you can't do that, turn the plane around and bring those undocumented criminals back here right now."

The Trump admin says "Ummm yes we have the authority to do what we did, here's the law we're following, and the powers granted by the constitution to do it." The judge says my ruling is final, you can appeal, but in the meantime you're in contempt of court.

Now the question is, what happens next? Can a sitting president be charged with contempt of court? Does the case just get kicked to the appeals? Does the USSC jump in and rule?

Well, you skipped ahead to chapter 5, lets stick with 2 for a while. Regular folks. There are plenty of admins / directors / heads that are the ones instructing, plus a lawyer of lawyers. And yes, rounding up folks and sending south without due process, but also not actually confirming a person is a criminal vs just looks like one is a great example (but only 1 of many right now) is a great aspect that should have legal implications.

 

[seminole97]

I'm to the point that I might start buying weapons and bullets. I think maga is going to drag us into a civil war.

Why?

 

[funksouljon]

Who ended up picking up the tab for the million dollar plus property damage to the Old Capital, Kinnick and assorted city property during the BLM riots?

Stay on task, start your own thread about 6 years ago....

 

[lucas80]

Who ended up picking up the tab for the million dollar plus property damage to the Old Capital, Kinnick and assorted city property during the BLM riots?

Did they arrest people?
Ts and Ps that you survived those riots.

 

[goldmom]

Link to property crimes going unpunished when adjudicated?
We are talking about the executive branch ignoring the judicial. But, sure, MAGA away.

MAGA? You can’t be talking to me. You must be just doing the usual…open mouth, run mouth, brain kicks in afterwards. 😵‍💫

 

[joelbc1]

The only power the Court has is “the power of law”…Without “law and order” the nation has chaos.
The Constitution provides the answer through legislation, administration and the judicial system…it is necessary that we citizens insist those we elect follow the Constitution.
“We the people” is the most important phrase used in the Constitution. Not the President, not the Congress and not the Courts…”we the people”…

 

[KFsdisciple]

The only power the Court has is “the power of law”…Without “law and order” the nation has chaos.
The Constitution provides the answer through legislation, administration and the judicial system…it is necessary that we citizens insist those we elect follow the Constitution.
“We the people” is the most important phrase used in the Constitution. Not the President, not the Congress and not the Courts…”we the people”…

I agree with you 100%. Since we don’t elect judges like we do the others, who holds the judges accountable to we the people? This is the issue for me, if we don’t like what the president is doing we have multiple remedies including impeachment or moving on after 4 years. No such remedies seem to exist for judges and they’ve kind of figured it out, that they have final word and aren’t accountable to we the people.

 

[RollingBallofButcherKnives]

I agree with you 100%. Since we don’t elect judges like we do the others, who holds the judges accountable to we the people? This is the issue for me, if we don’t like what the president is doing we have multiple remedies including impeachment or moving on after 4 years. No such remedies seem to exist for judges and they’ve kind of figured it out, that they have final word and aren’t accountable to we the people.

The people we elect appoint and approve the judges and justices. If you don’t like the rulings, blame the elected official that appointed and approved them. There is also Appellate Court.

 

[KFsdisciple]

The people we elect appoint and approve the judges and justices. If you don’t like the rulings, blame the elected official that appointed and approved them. There is also Appellate Court.

Yes, the good ole boys club of judges are the only ones who seem to have any authority over other judges... doesn't really sound like "we the people" to me. Even if/when we hold the politicians accountable like at the ballot box, the judges stay firmly implanted in their positions of power and continue to rule (on cases) as they see fit. Everyone on the left seemed pretty upset about Roe coming to an end... and there's nothing that can be done about Alito, Kavenaugh, ACB, Roberts, et al. You don't like their ruling? Well too bad, because they're the USSC and they are your betters. They don't answer to you, to the ballot box, to the President, to the Congress.

 

[thewop]

I heard one talking head describe the expanding executive powers of the past decade as this...

Beginning with the Obama admin and continuing through Biden, Democrats built a giant rake and then stepped on it.

Now, after 4 years to think about what he'd do differently, Trump is using the powers intended to advance the liberal agenda (including USDS, now DOGE) to advance his own.

Reality is the executive branch has been given too much power, and while Republicans repeatedly spoke up and said "hey guys just so you know, when the pendulum swings back this might not be as you intend..." Here we are. If I were Rs, I'd do everything possible to advance Trump's agenda, then push to take back the powers of the executive branch before he leaves office.

 

[RollingBallofButcherKnives]

Yes, the good ole boys club of judges are the only ones who seem to have any authority over other judges... doesn't really sound like "we the people" to me. Even if/when we hold the politicians accountable like at the ballot box, the judges stay firmly implanted in their positions of power and continue to rule (on cases) as they see fit. Everyone on the left seemed pretty upset about Roe coming to an end... and there's nothing that can be done about Alito, Kavenaugh, ACB, Roberts, et al. You don't like their ruling? Well too bad, because they're the USSC and they are your betters. They don't answer to you, to the ballot box, to the President, to the Congress.

Whatever dude. Your orange boy appointed some too. Also, this really wasn’t much of an issue until a dictator wannabe seized power.

 

[jneffer]

Whatever dude. Your orange boy appointed some too. Also, this really wasn’t much of an issue until a dictator wannabe seized power.

it is amazing how little so many of these actually care about (or maybe know) what's in the constitution

after years of yelling about how important it is, we need to change or just totally understand ignore it as soon as it becomes an obstacle to their agenda

 

[KFsdisciple]

Whatever dude. Your orange boy appointed some too. Also, this really wasn’t much of an issue until a dictator wannabe seized power.

The nation's lack of forward thinking and imagination isn't Trump's fault.

 

[KFsdisciple]

Whatever dude. Your orange boy appointed some too. Also, this really wasn’t much of an issue until a dictator wannabe seized power.

Whatever dude? That's it? Is that just an admission that I'm right?

 

[sober_teacher]

I agree with you 100%. Since we don’t elect judges like we do the others, who holds the judges accountable to we the people? This is the issue for me, if we don’t like what the president is doing we have multiple remedies including impeachment or moving on after 4 years. No such remedies seem to exist for judges and they’ve kind of figured it out, that they have final word and aren’t accountable to we the people.

The people we elect appoint and approve the judges and justices. If you don’t like the rulings, blame the elected official that appointed and approved them. There is also Appellate Court.

Not to mention judges can be impeached also, as well as having multiple layers of the judicial system so that one single judge isn't the be-all and end-all.

Of course, I'm sure your complaints will miraculously vanish when there's a Dem in office again.

 

[KFsdisciple]

Not to mention judges can be impeached also, as well as having multiple layers of the judicial system so that one single judge isn't the be-all and end-all.

Of course, I'm sure your complaints will miraculously vanish when there's a Dem in office again.

What's the process for impeaching a supreme court justice? Do we need to start petitions? What is the role of "we the people" in being a check and balance on federal court justices?

 

[jneffer]

What's the process for impeaching a supreme court justice? Do we need to start petitions? What is the role of "we the people" in being a check and balance on federal court justices?

you know you can actually look this up, right?

there are easy to access answers for these questions.

you don't have to just pretend you're the victim of judicial tyranny because president trump doesn't get to do anything and everything he wants to do