this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
339 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19097 readers
2946 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

They made their decision, let them enforce it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago
  • Andrew Jackson before he did a genocide against Court orders.

Not a great pull of a quote there.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

You have it backwards. The government cannot enforce laws without assistance from the judiciary.

For example, Congress once passed a law outlawing flag burning. The SCOTUS decided that was unconstitutional. But suppose everyone had decided to ignore that decision.

So someone is arrested for flag burning... and the case is immediately dismissed by a judge.

So the government decides to tax flag-burners instead. Someone refuses to pay that tax, the government sues ... and the case is immediately dismissed by a judge.

Pretty much everything the government does to "enforce" their will can be challenged, and challenges always end up before a judge. If the judge decides a law is unconstitutional, then the government will lose every case.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So someone is arrested for flag burning… and the case is immediately dismissed by a judge.

Ok, and? What makes you think they then get released from prison? Cause they just have to?

Pretty much everything the government does to “enforce” their will can be challenged

If the executive doesn't empower the judiciary, then no, everything cannot be challenged. You can assert your right to challenge an arrest before a judge however much you want, if your jailer says "nah", you don't get out of jail. The court is the veneer of slow and steady legitimacy validating the force of the executive, but rulings are just words, the thing that actually makes you have to listen to them is force.

This is, to be sure, a constitutional crisis likely to end with chaos. The real result would likely entail some sort of attempt to stand up a new "Supremer" court or decide that certain types of cases cannot be appealed or governors relying on their state courts and refusing to bend to a Supreme Court ruling they and their constituents don't agree with.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

if your jailer says "nah", you don't get out of jail

All your hypothetical scenarios require ignoring the Constitution, starting with habeas corpus.

One way or another, the only way to avoid judicial review is to set the Constitution aside. And sure, once that's done anything can happen.