Supreme Court Watch

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sammich said:
I would think it would set the tone of gun restrictions going forward, but new york and california (that i've seen) have already said they'd ignore it. Not sure how that's going to go, but i'm honestly excited to see what happens if a state tells the scotus to suck their dicks. Does the scotus have any way to inforce things?
Click to expand...
Unlike the executive, SCOTUS has no enforcement mechanism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sammich
FAQnews Correspondent said:
Unlike the executive, SCOTUS has no enforcement mechanism.
Click to expand...
What has kept states from just goign "lol fuck you scotus" in the past? I can't believe they haven't pulled this before, it's shocking to me they have no way of enforcing their rulings. I know desegregation was enforced by the national guard in alabama and i think arkansas, but i'm not sure how that works.
might be interesting going forward.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: NegerJäger
Sammich said:
What has kept states from just goign "lol fuck you scotus" in the past? I can't believe they haven't pulled this before, it's shocking to me they have no way of enforcing their rulings. I know desegregation was enforced by the national guard in alabama and i think arkansas, but i'm not sure how that works.
might be interesting going forward.
Click to expand...
1656070029100.png

The states are expected to follow SCOTUS rulings and when they don't there is various mechanisms the Executive branch can use to bring them in line peaking at military deployments, usually this is in coordination with the Legislative branch moving chairs around to make room for the fist right that is about to occur. I think everyone understands that economic sanctions don't exactly do shit if the population being targeted is willing to bear the costs, so sometimes military deployments are the only option available, this of course is playing with the iron dice and you can end up with a civil war over it. When both the States and Executive branch are unwilling to enforce a SCOTUS ruling then there is really nothing to be done, Andrew Jackson outright told SCOTUS to stfu and mocked them to their face, the Supreme Court of that era was honest enough to admit that ultimately laws are just scribbling on paper and without enforcement they mean nothing. There is a lot of federal law that gets ignored at the state level, all of the states that have legalized marijuana are in flagrant violation of the law, and you could write endlessly about the whole illegal immigration and sanctuary cities.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: NegerJäger, Saturnalia-1918, Mega Man II Intro - GB and 2 others
Sammich said:
What has kept states from just goign "lol fuck you scotus" in the past? I can't believe they haven't pulled this before, it's shocking to me they have no way of enforcing their rulings. I know desegregation was enforced by the national guard in alabama and i think arkansas, but i'm not sure how that works.
might be interesting going forward.
Click to expand...

Enforcement of Brown v. Board was even more fun than you're thinking -- the governor of Arkansas brought in the National Guard... to prevent integration. President Eisenhower had to send in the 101st Airborne to escort the black kids to school. Here's a good article on the story, and here's the National Archives' page, with a ton of original docs, including letters and diary entries from Eisenhower.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: NegerJäger, TheStabident, Norbert the Tiger and 2 others
The thing is, if states just start ignoring SCOTUS( and not just using legal fuckery tricks to avoid the issues like they had previously) it could start a knockback effect where various levels of governance( from cities to counties to states themselves) start ignoring the higher rungs of government. They already do with Sanctuary Cities/States but if enough parts start to refuse to enforce various laws, things could get messy, imo.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Irrational Exuberance and Sammich
attractive_pneumonia said:
View attachment 3420404

The states are expected to follow SCOTUS rulings and when they don't there is various mechanisms the Executive branch can use to bring them in line peaking at military deployments, usually this is in coordination with the Legislative branch moving chairs around to make room for the fist right that is about to occur. I think everyone understands that economic sanctions don't exactly do shit if the population being targeted is willing to bear the costs, so sometimes military deployments are the only option available, this of course is playing with the iron dice and you can end up with a civil war over it. When both the States and Executive branch are unwilling to enforce a SCOTUS ruling then there is really nothing to be done, Andrew Jackson outright told SCOTUS to stfu and mocked them to their face, the Supreme Court of that era was honest enough to admit that ultimately laws are just scribbling on paper and without enforcement they mean nothing. There is a lot of federal law that gets ignored at the state level, all of the states that have legalized marijuana are in flagrant violation of the law, and you could write endlessly about the whole illegal immigration and sanctuary cities.
Click to expand...
Andrew Jackson was such a fucking beast of a president, what i wouldn't give to have another one like him.

SCSI said:
Enforcement of Brown v. Board was even more fun than you're thinking -- the governor of Arkansas brought in the National Guard... to prevent integration. President Eisenhower had to send in the 101st Airborne to escort the black kids to school. Here's a good article on the story, and here's the National Archives' page, with a ton of original docs, including letters and diary entries from Eisenhower.
Click to expand...
Shit, that's pretty awesome, thanks so much for the links!
 
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Johnny Salami, Puff and SCSI
Rykel22 said:
The thing is, if states just start ignoring SCOTUS( and not just using legal fuckery tricks to avoid the issues like they had previously) it could start a knockback effect where various levels of governance( from cities to counties to states themselves) start ignoring the higher rungs of government. They already do with Sanctuary Cities/States but if enough parts start to refuse to enforce various laws, things could get messy, imo.
Click to expand...
Eh, that works both ways. Citizens can decide to ignore laws too if they see their local/regional governments doing it, and then it comes down to who's got more balls to actually start slinging lead first to settle the matter.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Irrational Exuberance
moocow said:
Eh, that works both ways. Citizens can decide to ignore laws too if they see their local/regional governments doing it, and then it comes down to who's got more balls to actually start slinging lead first to settle the matter.
Click to expand...
speaking of sanctuary citites, some state and counties consider themselves sanctuary 2nd amendment places.
 
Just know that they have until the 27th until the end of their term for this year.

It may not be today, especially if they do less than 8 cases today with the 9 remaining. If they do exactly 8, its because the draft opinion is still the same and Roberts is pushing it until they can go on vacation (read: get out of mob infested DC).
 
  • Informative
Reactions: MrJokerRager and Meat Target
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back