Wil Federal Court Orders be enforced if Trump or Musk don't like them?

[msc545]

[Anonymous]

Strictly speaking the Federal court only have the right to decide someone is not guilty, not order the executive to do anything they don't find constitutional.

So a president can't do anything to anyone but neither can a court force a president to do anything for anyone such as employ them. This was the whole point of Marbury v. Madison (1803). Marbury never got his writ to be a judge despite being nominated and confirmed by the prior president.

That is how a division of power works. Those who imply the court can tell the executive to do anything have effectively given that court unlimited power and with that act made the constitution unenforceable against any court.

[msc545]

You are wrong - federal courts enforce orders using the US Marshall Service, and contempt hearings. The Marshall Service is part of the Justice Dept, and the Justice Dept reports to the executive. Other than the US Marshalls, the courts have no police. Trump or Musk could easily instruct the Justice Department to instruct the US Marshall Service not to enforce a particular order.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545
Really exactly what part of the written Constitution are the U. S. Marshal service listed?
constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/full-text

The U. S. Marshals are by all rights an executive branch agency given to the service of the Court by congress and the same. Were they to rebel against the same executive in service of the court they would be out numbered and out gunned by the army, and the state Militias who might arrest them.

It is not within the power of the court to bring parties before it, that is an executive function. Therefore it cannot hold the same in contempt nor is it of any right to rob the treasury of theses united states in the payment it alone deems warranted for such executive services it alone deems desirable or appropriate.

It might find the agents that attempt to do so on is behalf innocent if brought before it in trial but they will soon enough be all killed to captured by states in the attempt. States who's independent judiciaries can in fact convict and hold them without the cooperation of the Federal executive in bring the same before the lawless court.

This is how the constitution is enforced against a rogue and lawless court. Take away such power and the court itself will invariably make itself an oligarchy in assuming such executive and legislative powers to itself as many other dictator courts have done in history.

The executive does NOT have to cooperate, and that refusal is critical to the existence of a Constitutional system of law enforceable upon the court.

[msc545]

You are right in that the executive does not have to cooperate - and it won't.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545
Whether or not the executive cooperates is up to the president in how far he wants to go, and congress in how far 2/3rds of them are willing to go before impeaching him.

Most presidents run for office precisely because they want the goverment to DO things and thus required the support of the court. They are not inclined to ever challenge the same court they themselves appointed and risk being losing support of the same and congress in what they DO want to do.

Particularly seeing as they can simply pardon anyone after conviction. A power that exist in recognition of that on going fact that the goverment cannot function without the active support of its executive ever step of the way.

So the bar for defying the court is rather high and it includes holes that make it glaringly unnecessary for an executive unless that executive is really committed to something NOT being done.

[msc545]

Wait and see what happens the first time. A court issues a ruling that is in opposition to what Trump wants.

[msc545]

I am referring of course to the supreme Court and not the lesser courts since Trump will simply appeal and appeal and clog up the system as much as he can. However, when a matter gets to the supreme Court and they rule against him which conceivably could happen even though he pretty much owns two of the justices then you are going to see some real problems when he defies the court and the court literally has no way of enforcing the ruling.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545 Trump can decide what he wants to do if the court decides to issue an unconstitutional edict demanding he do anything he doesn't feel is warranted.

If trump decides to stand up for the constitution and he has the support of more than 1/3rd of the senate he will win on any issue that requires the goverment do nothing.

[msc545]

Neither Trump nor the populace can officially decide that something is "Unconstitutional". That is up to the courts.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545 There is no constitution if only one man or group of mens have the exclusive say on what it means. Only the oligarch of such men, such is true of every law.

This is why we have 3 branches & levels of goverment. So that no one man or group of men gets the only word on what is and is not legal.

While it may be true that the court has the 'last' word that is far from being the only word. Tecnicly with pardoning power it is really isn't even the last word

[msc545]

Republicans control the Congress and the Executive at this point, and arguably may control the Supreme Court. If they DO control the Supreme Court, there is no balance of power, and democracy is finished the first time that Trump defies an order of the Supreme Court.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545 While it is certainly true that parties are a bad idea.

That 1 party control of all 3 branches and levels of goverment is worse it that it enables the parties external system of control to be used to bypass the self-interest of politicians in the position of checking from a motivation to check.

That said this is the point of the political party system to facilitate the interest and agenda's of the politicians who make them by enabling them to work together to use all the levers of goverment to that effect.

If we wanted to break parties we would need to focus on undermining their ability to filter and discipline their members. This might be done primarily by way of open primaries and removing party Identification from ballot and media. The cost of such efforts would be to also undermine the ability of the people to select politicians that mirror their own agenda.

So you would also need to reduce the number of elections and increase their duration to permit greater focus on each indiviual running. Ideally thou a tier system like in sports.

[msc545]

We don't really need to break parties at all. They are going to break themselves. If they have not already.

[Sevenpointfive]

i think any higher thinker would have seen the vance bomb

[msc545]

I am tired. Please explain.

[dustybiker2]

It would depend on the legal system. How often is anything enforces when it comes to the wealthy, let alone wealthy and mentally unfit.

[dustybiker2]

*enforced

[exitseven]

They will be challenged in court. Hopefully they get overturned.

[msc545]

What court?

[exitseven]

The Supreme Court.

[msc545]

Maybe so. We know that he has subborned at least two of the justices.