Supreme Court overrules Biden, but so what , he'll ignore them ...

[dogtag]

just like he did before with the renter moratorium.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...einstated.html

Why is there no punishment for deliberately ignoring a SCOTUS ruling ?

[togor]

Is the Supreme Court going to open negotiations with Mexico? The 9 justices have their own diplomatic corps?

Decided on the shadow docket no less.

The problem with decisions like this is that if they cannot be enforced as a practical matter, then the court issuing it sees some of its legitimacy slip away. For a long time Roberts was worried about this exact thing. And his fears are coming to pass.

[barretcreek]

If SloJo continues the eviction moratorium after the Supremes say 'nyet', that could be impeachment terrain. Which is up to the Critters and we're back to who is worse.

[Art]

Is the Supreme Court going to open negotiations with Mexico? The 9 justices have their own diplomatic corps?

Decided on the shadow docket no less.

The problem with decisions like this is that if they cannot be enforced as a practical matter, then the court issuing it sees some of its legitimacy slip away. For a long time Roberts was worried about this exact thing. And his fears are coming to pass.

So......"Mr. Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it."

You're referring to the long standing practice of individual Justices handing down decisions outside the "Merits Docket," or issuing unsigned opinions. It is the practice used, for example in "stay of execution" cases.

I find this less unethical than a judge in Hawaii deciding that the Donald Trump didn't have the authority to build a wall over 2,500 miles away on the Mexican border. Not a word from the left about that abuse of the courts. The Trump Administration actually honored that stupid decision going through the courts to get it overturned. Never heard a word from the left about the the inappropriate practice of "Judge Shopping" they engage in on a regular basis when the "R's" are in power.

I guess Court decisions, regardless of how they are arrived at, are only appropriate if you like them. Sort of like Biden admitting that his ignoring of the results of renter moratorium case which actually does involve property rights, is unconstitutional, but justified since by the time the Court came back on him his (Biden's) decree would have served its purpose. When a sitting President admits he is acting in an unconstitutional matter he has admitted an impeachable offense. Just like Andy "by God" Jackson when he (supposedly) made the above statement about Marshall.

Again...where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit.

Oh, and a P.S. I'm not wild about this decision (my agreement with stay in Mexico notwithstanding.)

[dryheat]

So the decisions can be "fluid". Which is real life. But I thought we had a trifecta(probably not the right term). Presidential, legislative, and judicial.

[togor]

Art,

My point, with which you presumably agree, is that decisions like this invite the executive branch to ignore them with some kind of technicality. In this case, negotiations with Mexico. And that generating opinions that are subsequently ignored damages the credibility of the court.

The decision itself is wrapped in the idea that the court is a stickler for procedure. But "procedure" can be cited or ignored on virtually any issue that ever gets raised. So it can be argued, persuasively, that a court that operates along these lines is a stickler for procedure, except when it isn't. In other words, "procedure" is always a small-bore justification. And small-bore decisions on the shadow docket are a fast track to a loss of legitimacy for the institution of the court.

[Art]

I agree the courts do things that impair their credibility even when they act strictly within the bounds of procedure, which is not the point.

The court has made what you refer to as "small bore" decisions for a very, very long time. Nobody seems to care about them unless it's there ox that's being gored.

There is a principle, which is honored by the Supreme Court and generally by the other branches of government that the procedures of each branch are its own business. The procedures of the courts are not open to action by the executive, and are not an excuse for ignoring them. Biden, almost incredibly, admitted he was committing an unconstitutional and impeachable act. With Biden intemperate and sometimes outright stupid comments are a regular thing but this one is in a class of its own.

So...Biden has admitted acting in violation of his oath and the Constitution so he has committed an actual impeachable offense, not the BS stuff every impeached president so far has been hauled into congress for. Speaking of things that have lost credibility, nothing is less credible now than the impeachment power of Congress as it relates to the President. The fact that Congress seems to want to abuse its impeachment authority every time a President of the other party is in power doesn't remove that power.

Also...the Supreme Court just reinstated the "stay in Mexico" policy on the "Merit Docket," vote, signed decision the whole nine. By so doing they've actually done Biden a favor since this will mitigate his catastrophic handling of the border situation, if he's smart enough to leave it alone.

[Vern Humphrey]

So......"Mr. Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it."

You know Jackson never said that.

The case was Worcester vs Georgia, where Worcester and his fellow missionaries had been sent to prison for violating a Georgia law that required white men to have a license from the state to live among the Indians. The court ruled Indian nations are sovereign and only subject to Federal law, not State law. The state of Georgia refused to release the missionaries, though.

Jackson had no role in this -- the President can intervene in such a case only if the Court requests Federal marshals. The court made no such request and Jackson had his hands full with the Nullification Crisis in South Carolina. Using force against Georgia AND South Carolina would have precipitated a civil war, but Jackson worked under the table to finesse both crises (which is why Trump said Jackson would have prevented the Civil War -- he did during his administration.)

In a private letter to John Coffee, Jackson wrote "The Supreme Court's ruling seems to have died aborning, and the court will have difficulty enforcing it."

Jackson exerted subtle pressure and Governor Lumpkin of Georgia paroled Worcester and his associates on the condition they leave Georgia and never return -- and the case went away.

[togor]

.....

So...Biden has admitted acting in violation of his oath and the Constitution so he has committed an actual impeachable offense, not the BS stuff every impeached president so far has been hauled into congress for. Speaking of things that have lost credibility, nothing is less credible now than the impeachment power of Congress as it relates to the President. The fact that Congress seems to want to abuse its impeachment authority every time a President of the other party is in power doesn't remove that power.

....

I'd be interested in an objective summary of Biden's misdeeds and how they stack up against the previous occupant of the office.

Or can we stipulate that you're not being objective with the above?

That's the thing, right? Conversations about violations of the rules of the game, really only work when people are at least trying to be objective. In this respect no different than sports fans who are so blinded by their loyalties that they can't be objective about the officiating.

[lyman]

why must it be this vs that?

and who cares how they stack up vs Trump, Obama or even Geo Washington,

misdeeds are just that, misdeeds,


real question is, will he be prosecuted for it?

[togor]

why must it be this vs that?

and who cares how they stack up vs Trump, Obama or even Geo Washington,

misdeeds are just that, misdeeds,


real question is, will he be prosecuted for it?

Criminally prosecuted for acting in his capacity as an elected official of the United States?

No.

It doesn't work that way.


Added: you really really really don't like relative comparisons to past events do you. But without consistency over time with how lines are drawn, we can't keep this Republic of ours.

[lyman]

Criminally prosecuted for acting in his capacity as an elected official of the United States?

No.

It doesn't work that way.


Added: you really really really don't like relative comparisons to past events do you. But without consistency over time with how lines are drawn, we can't keep this Republic of ours.

and that is where you are off,

criminally prosecuted for acting in his capacity as an elected official, when that capacity is illegal,



does that not sound wrong to you??


when you make a relative comparison, then maybe it would matter,

have yet to see you do so, and in that you are consistent,

[togor]

and that is where you are off,

criminally prosecuted for acting in his capacity as an elected official, when that capacity is illegal,



does that not sound wrong to you??


when you make a relative comparison, then maybe it would matter,

have yet to see you do so, and in that you are consistent,

Look up Sovereign Immunity.

Then explain how it doesn't apply to Biden (or Trump or Obama or Bush) when acting in their official government capacity as President.