rwilson452
New member
It's my read on Chicago's new law that it my make it to the 7th. It will be struck down. Chicago will appeal for a hearing en blank and not get it. They will appeal to SC and be denied cert.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What happens if an administration refuses to follow a Supreme Court ruling?
- Thread starter ISC
- Start date
It depends on the Supreme Court Ruling. If we're talking specifically about McDonald, there really isn't all that much that the president could do to stop it.
For example, suppose Chicago chooses to ignore the courts and keep its handgun ban on the books. Even though the law is there, it would be unenforceable. If someone were arrested for violation of a law that has already been found unconstitutional, it would be pretty much impossible to convict them and even if they did, the conviction would surely be overturned in the appeals process. Not only that, arrest under such a law would seemingly invite several very expensive discrimination lawsuits. Whether the executive and legislative branches like it or not, they simply cannot enforce laws which the judicial branch has found unconstitutional.
For example, suppose Chicago chooses to ignore the courts and keep its handgun ban on the books. Even though the law is there, it would be unenforceable. If someone were arrested for violation of a law that has already been found unconstitutional, it would be pretty much impossible to convict them and even if they did, the conviction would surely be overturned in the appeals process. Not only that, arrest under such a law would seemingly invite several very expensive discrimination lawsuits. Whether the executive and legislative branches like it or not, they simply cannot enforce laws which the judicial branch has found unconstitutional.
rwilson452 wrote: "It's my read on Chicago's new law that it my make it to the 7th. It will be struck down. Chicago will appeal for a hearing en blank and not get it. They will appeal to SC and be denied cert."
I agree with this - seems most likely. I would look for the lower federal courts to do a lot of the defining of the parameters of the RKBA with the USSC only stepping in and granting cert when or if they find the lower courts going off the rails or there is a major split between the circuits.
I agree with this - seems most likely. I would look for the lower federal courts to do a lot of the defining of the parameters of the RKBA with the USSC only stepping in and granting cert when or if they find the lower courts going off the rails or there is a major split between the circuits.
Benjamin Franklin had something colorful to say about this very issue (but regarding a hypothetical future President rather than a mayor)There is no hope for Chicago (my opinion). Daly is too strong and will remain in office until he decides to retire or dies.
Then the justices would be obligated to supporters who donate money to their election campaigns, justices who would then have to recuse themselves should they face a case in which their supporter has an interest in. Honorable men and women would then be obligated to stand up to their campain promises.
What kind of promises would YOU make for an appointment to a lifelong bench where history can be made on any given case?
What kind of promises would YOU make for an appointment to a lifelong bench where history can be made on any given case?
Historically - Andrew Jackson ignored the USSC and suffered no consequence as a result. I believe he said something to the effect that, well the court has made their decision, now let them enforce it.
FDR - didn't like the court when it ruled parts of his new deal unconstitutional and he obeyed the court but then tried to pack it by trying to appoint additional members to the court who would support him and his legislation - but the public didn't support it - and he backed off his plan.
Realistically, I don't in the foreseeable future, see any president out and out refusing to obey a court decision - what they typically would do is pass a similar law with a different legal justification and hope it isn't overturned - (the disclose act - Chicago's new gun laws - though that’s a mayor), say in word they support the law/ruling but do little to actually enforce it (immigration law), and/or let the enforcement of it suffocate under layer after layer of bureaucracy, red tape, and lack of funding.
FDR - didn't like the court when it ruled parts of his new deal unconstitutional and he obeyed the court but then tried to pack it by trying to appoint additional members to the court who would support him and his legislation - but the public didn't support it - and he backed off his plan.
Realistically, I don't in the foreseeable future, see any president out and out refusing to obey a court decision - what they typically would do is pass a similar law with a different legal justification and hope it isn't overturned - (the disclose act - Chicago's new gun laws - though that’s a mayor), say in word they support the law/ruling but do little to actually enforce it (immigration law), and/or let the enforcement of it suffocate under layer after layer of bureaucracy, red tape, and lack of funding.
BlueTrain said:You could just as easily started the thread by saying the animosity of the John Roberts Supreme Court towards the Obama Administration.
Roberts didn't make a televised speech infront of both houses of congress criticizing the executive branch. That was a shocking first and extreme breach of protocol and tradition.
Tradition is merely what we did last year. History is what has been happening all along. There have been fights on the floor of the house and at one time it was common for them to carry guns in the chamber. These have been pretty tame times of late. However, I take it that you are not implying that the Supreme Court is never above criticism. It certainly didn't used to be.
I'm saying that openly citicizing another branch of government during a constitutionally madated public speech is a glaring sign of animosity.
If Roberts had called out the President using derisive language in one of his decisions I would acknowledge that he was displaying animosity toward the President.
I hate to play the "who started it" finger pointing game, but it seems pretty clear that it is not the Supreme Court that has been disrespectful of the other branches of government.
Carrying this a step further, the constitutional role of the Senate is to advise and consent. The senate has increasingly played the role of bullying and demanding that nominated justices have an activist ideology or at least be open to the concept of reinterpreting the costitution along ideolgical lines rather than the original intent of the writers of the constitution.
The big concern for me in this regard is that a revisionist minded president in concert with a revisionist minded congress might decided that the constitutional checks and balances don't apply to them or a specific ruling.
If Roberts had called out the President using derisive language in one of his decisions I would acknowledge that he was displaying animosity toward the President.
I hate to play the "who started it" finger pointing game, but it seems pretty clear that it is not the Supreme Court that has been disrespectful of the other branches of government.
Carrying this a step further, the constitutional role of the Senate is to advise and consent. The senate has increasingly played the role of bullying and demanding that nominated justices have an activist ideology or at least be open to the concept of reinterpreting the costitution along ideolgical lines rather than the original intent of the writers of the constitution.
The big concern for me in this regard is that a revisionist minded president in concert with a revisionist minded congress might decided that the constitutional checks and balances don't apply to them or a specific ruling.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Ok - if we are talking about the actions of a particular individual through one's partisan's eyes - then it isn't an L and CR issue.
Yeah, members of the court and the Administration and Congress all are good or bad at time.
So, isn't the answer simply that the Congress impeaches, tries and removes the President? Or do we want hint about revolution - a no-no for the list.
I'm getting bored with this thread's direction.
Glenn
Yeah, members of the court and the Administration and Congress all are good or bad at time.
So, isn't the answer simply that the Congress impeaches, tries and removes the President? Or do we want hint about revolution - a no-no for the list.
I'm getting bored with this thread's direction.
Glenn
armoredman
New member
To both keep this firearm oriented, AND in theme, you have only to look at the Lopez decision, which invalidated the 1000 foot firearm/school rule passed under the infamous commerce clause. Congress merely adjusted the law to fit the new look, and re passed it. I haven't heard of anyone fighting it again.