Non sequitur is the Latin for the term "does not follow." An argument is considered a "non sequitur" if the conclusion does not logically follow from the posted premise. I've made the case that your argument was a non sequitur not because it was wrong, but because the conclusion had no basis in the premise you posted (i.e., Congress hasn't overruled the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, so therefore Congress has no authority over the Supreme Court).
I'd say it is clear that the court's lack of enforcement power can never be an effective check. We rightfully cherish the rule of law. For the Congress and Executive to arbitrarily ignore court rulings would be a disaster.
There was an interesting "separation of church and state" case that played out in the Federal courts about 15-20 years ago, in which a public high school student in a southern state (I think it was Alabama) filed suit against his school to keep a Baptist minister from leading the students and fans in prayer before every home football game. The Federal court determined that the minister's actions amounted to an unconstitutional establishment of religion on the part of the school. The case got a lot of attention at the time as one of those landmark "free exercise" cases in the Federal courts, and the ruling was immediately appealed. The appellate court upheld the decision, and the minister was ordered to cease and desist immediately.
The minister and school district considered additional action in the Federal courts, but the matter was really taking a financial toll on all of the people involved. So they pretty much decided to ignore the Federal court ruling and go on as if nothing had ever happened. The minister publicly announced that he was going to get on the stadium P.A. system before every football game and lead the student body and fans in prayer -- and if the Federal courts had a problem with it they should just come on down to Alabama the following Saturday and have him arrested.
He basically told the Federal courts to "f#ck off." And "f#ck off" they did, since he's apparently continued leading his prayers to this day. The student who filed the suit in the first place was probably a strident, snot-nosed undergraduate in the sociology department at Berkeley or Harvard by the time the appeals were exhausted anyway, so who the hell even cared by that point.
This was not an "arbitrary" decision to ignore a court ruling, either. This was nothing more than ordinary people telling the Federal courts to leave them alone.
I note that you continue the non sequitur with this statement:
Congress hasn't overruled the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, so therefore Congress has no authority over the Supreme CourtIn the second place, I have never made that argument which is clearly false.
In the third place, I have made clear that I'm not talking about Congress but about the governed, the citizens of this country. I have said this twice, once in the post you originally responded to and then again later to make it clear. The point is not subtle so I hope you get it now.
Now, you have found one case which I will accept as an instance of the courts having been ignored. (I am appalled at this case by the way.) Yes, it is clear, and I have not disputed, that the courts have no constitutional power to enforce their decisions. But, surely you are not going to pretend that such an outcome is common. It cannot be because, as I have argued, arbitrarily ignoring court decisions undermines the rule of law and I do think Americans hold that dear. Do you dispute that?
But even so, it is again not the main point. I am talking about effective checks by the governed on the judicial branch. The judicial branch is too far removed from the consent of the governed. They do not serve us but rather their own evolving interpretation of the Constitution. It is a failing of the Framers that this is so.
And please, don't reply if you can't stick to the point or intend to misrepresent my argument again.