[Alberta's Child]

What is the U.S. judiciary going to do if the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security simply keeps every traveler from those seven countries out of the U.S. — or just delays their entry indefinitely for some reason or another?

[silverleaf]

What are we going to do if the DHS stands down on an EO and follows the directives of a judge in Seattle?

[Dave W]

That is a good question. I remember reading in National Review several years ago, how the Courts had grown more powerful than the Constitution intended. The article had examples in which the President just ignored the Supreme Court and nothing happened. The article maintained that was appropriate since all three branches are supposed to be equal and the SC was never intended to dictate to the rest of us. It was not supposed to have the final word since the Presidency is co-equal. All the examples used in the article were from the 1800s. I can't remember the examples used but it was interesting.

However, today, it is different. If a president ignored the SC, the media would crucify the president as being rogue, etc. There would be riotous calls for impeachment and conviction and I think that Congress would oblige. The public today is brainwashed into thinking the SC is the final law and we are forced to follow it. I don't see a way around it.

The only thing I see that can fix this is to impeach judges that are rogue, such as Ruth Bader Ginsberg some years ago saying it is OK to refer to other countries constitutions to determine if a US law is constitutional. Many people think that impeachment and conviction is the result of a crime and that is not necessarily true. Anyway, Congress will never do it.