[Aetius]

I'd love to see, for example, the Sup Court impose gay marriage or civil unions (and the 'or civil unions' is important since most states would reject legal recognition of same-sex unions no matter what euphemism is used to describe them), and then have a defiant President and Congress publicly slam the decision as being w/o basis in the Constitution, and then proclaim their intention to ignore the decision and refuse to enforce it.

If I thought for a second that Bush or the Senate would do this, then I'd root for such a SCOTUS decision (I'd give the House a 50/50 chance).

It would be great, as it would focus the public on the Courts like nothing else ever has. It would allow the GOP/Right, if they were willing, to make the case that these justices were abusing their power by imposing their won leftwing, elitist values on the entire nation, and that the the same mindset that leads one to impose gay marriage is the same that makes impossible even the most reasonable restrictions on abortion, and that twists the Establishment Clause so as to give themselves the power to ban public nativity scenes or prayers before a highschool football game.

I'm confident that we could win this battle for the public, despite inevitable and vigorous mainstream media campaigning for the concept of judicial rule.

Really, what is the worst that could happen? The Sup Court cannot enforce its decisions w/o the other two branches. If the President assured the states that they could ignore the decision and keep handling the matter for themselves, what could happen?

It seems the only way the decision could ever be enforced would be if some future President decided to enforce it, but by then the notion of judicial supremacy would be shattered.

[Les_Miserables]

I do subscribe to Rumsfield's philosophy of "if you can't fix it make it worse" in the obvious hope that a worse problem would demand a fix. However, SCOTUS is already in the worse category. I couldn't support a course further down the path of amoral fixation they are currently on. If POTUS refused to enforce a ruling that would temporarily fore stay the problem but a new less favorable president could be elected and we might find the army in our bedrooms. Remember Bubba and Blondie?

Now Congress is another matter. Congress has the power to gradually strangle SCOTUS until they get the message. To give a draconian example: Let's suppose POTUS provides temporary relief from a particularly onerous decision through lack of enforcement. Congress can really put the screws to SCOTUS by de-funding all but their salaries (everything...all..paper, pencils, telephone, everything period) Second step could be to gradually suspend US District and Circuit Courts (or at least the most egregious ones like the 9th circuit) all of which serve at the pleasure of Congress. Since SCOTUS has only appeal authority on most matters not involving disputes between the states, there would be no path to take ACLU issues to SCOTUS.

Plenty of disruption? You bet but it would work in a heartbeat. It would require many members of congress to grow eggs however and that is our (we the people) job.