|
National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
If you were clerking for a Supreme Court Justice and were asked to research this ...
In another post I posed the question regarding the effect on society when laws become capricious, arbitrary and otherwise inconsistent with due process.
Some would answer that such an occurrence will never run its course because the judiciary will shut it down. But what happens if the Supreme Court decides an issue, but the lower courts tell the Supreme Court to pound sand? My question, for the legal scholars out there, is what remedies, if any, are available to the Supreme Court? I'm sincerely interested in any thoughts you have (recognizing that you may well need to think outside of the box). |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Supreme Court can hold the offenders in contempt (including persuasive contempt, where they are, for instance, held in jail until they comply with the court's demands). If the official LE refuses to enforce such a contempt order, Supreme Court can make it up to the public to have such offenders arrested. I'm sure there would be quite a few takers.
I doubt SC would do it though. It takes guts that are in short supply these days.
__________________
DiaHero Foundation - helping people manage diabetes. Sending diabetes supplies to Ukraine now, any help is appreciated. DDR AK furniture and Norinco M14 parts kit: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1756292 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
There was a time when the Marshals reported directly to the courts. In that case, if a public official was in contempt of court, they Marshalls could arrest them and hold them in jail until the public official implemented the court order.
But many of the Marshals were combined with other law enforcement agencies, so now the executive has the power. Are there enough Marshals to arrest the rogue FBI agents who keep breaking the law for example? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Here's your answer: Drag them out of whatever building We the People own and hang them upside down from the nearest tree. Does that answer your question?
__________________
California Native Lifelong Gun Owner NRA Member CRPA Member ....."He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance." Declaration of Independence, 1776 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Not at all. I have not researched the issue and have too much on my plate to do so now. It does seem to me, however, that some of the States are giving the SC the finger. There is a saying ... for every wrong there is a remedy. It must be so. The Supreme Court MUST have the ability to obtain obedience to its decisions and, if it does not, we may be doomed. That is not acceptable. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
To prevent power from coalescing in any 1 branch of the government the Constitution limited what roles each branch has, and therefore the amount of power they can garner.
The courts don't have a lot of power. Basically, they issue orders and the other branches carry them out. However, the hierarchy of the court is such that each court has a "presiding judge" who "oversees" the others. This isn't purely administrative although most functions of the PJ are administrative in nature. Discipline is one of those things which falls within the "administrative" functions of the PJ. Appellate courts can sanction lower court judges. They've actually done so in the past. [Insert citation here that I can't remember the name for.] Again, this is the hierarchy of the court system and it's set up this way in the Constitution which creates "one supreme court" which has jurisdiction over the "inferior" courts. Therefore, SCOTUS is the the court the others must obey. If the lower courts were to directly and openly disobey the SCOTUS, the SCOTUS can direct that the lower courts be punished through sanctions or removal/disbarment. This applies to all "inferior" courts all the way down to weekend night court magistrates. The SCOTUS can order the Marshall to arrest those persons who are acting in contempt. If the Marshall refuses to do so, then at that point we are no longer a nation of laws. In a situation where government no longer obeys the law, the power devolves directly to the people to handle the situation as they see fit.
__________________
Some random thoughts: Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far. Evil doesn't only come in black. Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise! My Utubery |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I also think there are things they can do to leap over the lower courts and directly discipline government officials who ignore their rulings. For example, they could restrict or eliminate government immunity from personal damages. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
A good clerk would be saying stuff like this. It's politics of course and politics can be dangerous. But doggone it, the Supremes need to stand up for themselves like they did in the early years. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
5BF96C70-2A97-41F9-8CC9-4FE2D69E781F.jpg 689CC61F-85E1-44C6-B149-2C357B5F06EB.jpg 828DFFA6-071F-4897-9D9C-5F960EEF50EA.jpg
__________________
Anchors Aweigh Last edited by Mayor McRifle; 08-28-2022 at 3:00 PM.. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
They could couldn't they...
Something along the lines of, "We hold that these activities by [the elected official] are not legitimate actions during the course of their duties, and therefore these acts are not protected by qualified immunity but are, in fact, a deliberate deprivation of a citizen's civil rights. The officials who deprive someone of their civil rights under color of authority are subject to the civil remedies, including compensation, common to others who have their civil rights violated by police or other government officials."
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Find the mole in the USSC. It's not even on the radar anymore. Nah, so much stuff to go after.
Leak some product info from Apple and see how fast they raid your home. Leak a draft opinion from the SCOTUS and zip. If you were Clerking for a Justice, just maybe start with finding out which fellow Clerk was doing that. After all this time, no one knows? .
__________________
Let Go of the Status Quo! Don't worry, it will never pass...How in the hell did that pass? Think past your gun, it's the last resort, the first is your brain. Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent. In the history of humanity, no defense has ever won against an enemy with time on their side. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
The KGB could envisioned it. In fact, it partially orchestrated it. So yeah, it was possible to imagine it back then... but not by us. Come to think of it, for all his faults, ol' McCarthy could see some of the dangers. Not sure if his ways of countering it were the best, but the danger was and is quite real, as we can now see.
__________________
DiaHero Foundation - helping people manage diabetes. Sending diabetes supplies to Ukraine now, any help is appreciated. DDR AK furniture and Norinco M14 parts kit: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1756292 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
https://twitter.com/willchamberlain/...85968939630592 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
When you refer to "lower courts," I think you need to distinguish between (a) lower Article III federal courts and (b) state courts. Judges of lower Article III federal courts can be disciplined through the judicial administrative system. See McBryde v. Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct and Disability Orders of the Judicial Conference of the United States, 264 F.3d 52 (2001). If you're talking about state courts, then I think the remedies are going to be along the lines of the remedies used when states openly ignored Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). For example, look at the range of remedies discussed in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971). |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Based on a premise that the SCOTUS is actually the ultimate arbiter of the law, and has jurisdiction over every Federal issue as well as the "inferior courts", they can pretty much do as they please when it comes to doling out punishments. That they haven't done so directly doesn't mean they cannot, only that they have not. Which I believe is only because they have not had a rebellion in the lower courts prior to now. State administrations, yes; lower courts, no.
__________________
Some random thoughts: Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far. Evil doesn't only come in black. Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise! My Utubery |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Some random thoughts: Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far. Evil doesn't only come in black. Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise! My Utubery |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Anchors Aweigh |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|