Executive vs Judiciary

[Topolino]

I suppose this topic is becoming popular due to current events.

If the Executive branch still refuse to abide by a judiciary decree after exhausting all the appeals what kind of "coercion" can the judiciary apply?
In other words what kind of teeth has a judiciary decree faced with refusal from the branch of government that controls the "muscle"?

On related subject
What are the provisions to "recall" a POTUS beside Impeachment?
Who has the authority to initiate impeachment?

Concerned citizens want to know

Thanks

 

[army judge]

The courts have limited abilities to enforce mass edicts.
It's legally one of the Great Writs, Writ of Mandamus.
Courts, speaking generally, have police, sheriffs, US Marshals, and the various law enforcement agencies.

Lets journey back to the sizzling '60s.
The courts would issue edicts to desegregate, many times the president would nationalize national guard troops, us marshals, and desegregation still took 20-30 years. Some would argue we're still ridding the country of the abuses Jim Crow heaped on the descendants of slaves.

Fast forward to today, if the current president ignored the order out of the WA, and chose to operate under the order from Boston (which supports his new orders), there's nothing that could be done except to pursue impeachment.

Impeachment isn't quick, and the opposition is in the minority.

I'm enjoying the show, and awaiting what will happen after the oral arguments today, maybe tomorrow.

Justice Kennedy could be approached, as he's the circuit justice over the 9th circuit.

This illustrates that if the masses ignore government edicts, the government can't lock up millions of its citizenry.

Take the border burglars, they've been flaunting our lackluster border enforcement for decades.

During the 70s, people chose not to obey the 55MPH brain child of Nixon's.

The limits were soon increased.

All in all, typical DC talk, little action, and the caterwauling TV geniuses who failed to call the election correctly are getting this wrong, too.

US citizens are tired of being prostituted by pimps and tax slavers masquerading as CONgresspeople and Senators.

Smoke and mirrors, noise and lies.

 

[adjusterjack]

Concerned citizens want to know

Didn't you pay attention in school when this stuff was taught?

Or aren't US schools teaching it anymore?

 

[mightymoose]

If the Executive branch still refuse to abide by a judiciary decree after exhausting all the appeals what kind of "coercion" can the judiciary apply?
In other words what kind of teeth has a judiciary decree faced with refusal from the branch of government that controls the "muscle"?

The short answer is NONE. The courts don't really have teeth, just opinions about what teeth are.
However, failure to comply with a court order could be prosecuted as contempt, and contempt of court is a criminal act. The Attorney General would have to initiate a contempt investigation into a president.

On related subject
What are the provisions to "recall" a POTUS beside Impeachment?
Who has the authority to initiate impeachment?

The short answer is that presidents are not recalled by a vote of the people. Article 2 of the Constitution lists treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors as grounds from removal from office by impeachment. The misdemeanors part is where the above contempt of court conviction would come into play. However, even with a conviction, it is at the discretion of Congress whether to impeach, and even if impeached whether to remove from office.

As it currently is, the government is apparently in full compliance with the restraining order that was issued which makes this all quite a stretch from ever taking place. In recent weeks the words "impeachment" and "unconstitutional" have been getting tossed around quite liberally. As of yet the president has done nothing that would result in impeachment proceedings, and nothing is unconstitutional until a court with appropriate jurisdiction declares it so.

 

[mightymoose]

My own take on current events:
This recent restraining order will most likely be overturned as a result of the Supreme Court and 9th Circuit opinions in the Arizona v US case a few years ago.
Arizona had passed state legislation that got into the realm of enforcement typically handled by the federal government. The 9th Circuit found that the state had infringed upon the prerogatives of the federal government. On appeal the Supreme Court, in Kennedy's majority opinion, affirmed that the federal government (i.e. the President via delegated authority from Congress) enjoys "broad" and "undoubted" authority to regulate immigration matters and may use great discretion in how to implement the laws.
These opinions will have to be reconciled against the District Court in Washington which, by granting a restraining order, has now implied that states may obstruct that well-established federal power and discretion. States either have some control over federal immigration matters or they do not. It can't be both ways.
The same judges that sided with the authority of the federal government in the recent Arizona case will have to reverse course from that opinion and establish a new state power that has not existed before.
That is just not likely.
In the end the authority of the executive is most likely to be affirmed and the restraining order lifted.

 

[army judge]

My own take on current events:
This recent restraining order will most likely be overturned as a result of the Supreme Court and 9th Circuit opinions in the Arizona v US case a few years ago.
Arizona had passed state legislation that got into the realm of enforcement typically handled by the federal government. The 9th Circuit found that the state had infringed upon the prerogatives of the federal government. On appeal the Supreme Court, in Kennedy's majority opinion, affirmed that the federal government (i.e. the President via delegated authority from Congress) enjoys "broad" and "undoubted" authority to regulate immigration matters and may use great discretion in how to implement the laws.
These opinions will have to be reconciled against the District Court in Washington which, by granting a restraining order, has now implied that states may obstruct that well-established federal power and discretion. States either have some control over federal immigration matters or they do not. It can't be both ways.
The same judges that sided with the authority of the federal government in the recent Arizona case will have to reverse course from that opinion and establish a new state power that has not existed before.
That is just not likely.
In the end the authority of the executive is most likely to be affirmed and the restraining order lifted.

A well written, seriously considered, cogent legal analysis applying pass legal precedent to a current legal dilemma or drama.

Thank you for a great read.