Should the government follow court orders or ignore them?

[msc545]

Follow orders

Ignore orgers they dislike

[MisterWack]

If court orders weren’t mean to be followed, former Presidents couldn’t be tried in court, and the Presidency means you can do whatever you want which makes it ‘not illegal’ the United States Constitution would say so.

I could go on about Presidents must follow Oath of Office which is found in US Constitution which makes all Presidents that take the Oath have an obligation if not their main objective to follow US Constitution always and never walk away or try to limit its hold on The Executive Branch / try to shape the govt to follow your needs over the needs of the American public.

This belief is beyond any Administration, it is ALL Administrations. Past and future.

[MisterWack]

*Past, Present, And Future! ALL!

[Chazmatazz269]

Depends on the order. You know judges can be wrong and even corrupt, right?
Their duty to the citizens is to interpret the laws, not rewrite them. When judges blatantly flout the laws for their own political agenda, they should be removed from the courts permanently.


Do you 100% support the courts, even when they decide in a manner that you don’t like? How about when a judge clearly violates the law, rather than upholding it?
Your bias is insanity.

[msc545]

I have yet to see a Judge make an order breaking the law, but there are two Judges on the Supreme Court, who seem to take bribes.

[Chazmatazz269]

You’ve put on blinders.
Judges abuse and overstep their authority quite frequently.

[Gwendoline]

Don't governments make the law? In the uk a bill that is passed by parliament, the house of commons and the monarch becomes an Act of Parliament and is law. If its an Act of parliament judges and the court of to adhere to it. Basically democracy, It works this way in democratic countries.

[msc545]

The US is no longer a Democratic country as recent events have illustrated.

[Gwendoline]

Well are the courts dictating what laws the elected government can make?

[msc545]

No. The Congress makes the laws, and the Courts decide if the laws Congress makes are consistent with other laws, including the Constitution. The executive branch applies the laws. The problem we have is that the executive has now decided it is in charge of everything.

[Gwendoline]

Seems like a recipe for the subversion of democracy if unelected judges can interpret the law however they feel.

[msc545]

It isn't about Judges - they do not make the law. The legislature does. It is about a mentally ill executive who wants to be a dictator.

[Gwendoline]

Don't know. I always thought America was more democratic than the uk. Perhaps I was wrong.

[msc545]

I think that that the US used to be a lot more democratic than it is now. Things have changed and not for the better.

[Jessica405]

Government makes laws. Judiciary interprets laws.

Don't like a decision by judiciary?

Change laws!

[Sevenpointfive]

i don't trust the court or the legal system one bit. everything about it is corrupt down to the police. the supreme court does absolutely nothing but decline cases. no one in government can do their jobs. i'll say 6% do, but the president doesn't need to hear shit about what some state judge ruled because it doesn't matter at the federal level. judges should be disbarred and fired for being unethical, corrupt and insubordinate. they should also be jailed in some cases.

[msc545]

In other words, should judges be disbarred or jailed for disagreeing with Trump? In that case, why have Judges or Courts at all?

[Sevenpointfive]

it's not that there shouldn't be. it's that they should be moral and not take bribes or influence outside the law.

[msc545]

In a capitalist society virtualy everyone is immoral and takes bribes.

[Sevenpointfive]

and that has to stop. it's like the mayor eric adams case being dismissed. you bribe the judge to dismiss your bribery case? that's some very stupid obviously corrupt shit right there!

[NathanDavis]

"should" is an interesting word...

[robocop666]

The British government did it abandoning the islands

[msc545]

Did what?

[robocop666]

international law ruled that islands were not theirs so they gave them back.

[msc545]

What islands and who did htey givbe them back to?

[robocop666]

mauritius

[msc545]

That is sort of irrelevant, isn't it?