[Graybeard58]

Why Obey The Supreme Court?

Andrew Jackson didn't.

[Just mythoughts]

There already is a Constitutional crisis, no longer are "the people" the government and the government is now the giver and taker of those unalienable RIGHTS!!!

[Eagles Talon IV]

Actually I am quite sure the USSC has no ability to enforce any of it's decisions.

[ncountylee]

Congress can withhold funds for court security. The courts would stop meeting and the damage would be limited.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Preservation of rule of law demands the executive give great deference to the findings of the courts. The rule of law is something worth preserving, but please note, the lawlessness of the courts seems to be the greatest threat to rule of law these days.

Clearly, rule of law and rule by lawyers are two different things. For the rule of law to work, lawyers and most especially judges, must be true servants of the law.

[Military family member]

The problem began with the legislation. The Constitution states that it is the Supreme Law of the Land and SCOTUS is the supreme arbiter of that law. Congress cannot pass a law that bypasses that part of the Constitution.

Doesn't that start a rather dangerous precedent? If Congress and the President can bypass SCOTUS, then why wouldn't Congress just bypass POTUS and SCOTUS? What if the president decided to bypass Congress? Since many here seem to be conceding presidential victory to Hillary Clinton, wouldn't that start a rather frightening turn?

There is something the president could do, which has Constitutional and legal precedent: Increase the number of members. The Constitution does not call for 9 members; historically it has had more and even as few as five.

[Melas]

Ok, let's take this argument to it's logical conclusion: Why obey any court you don't agree with? Why pay the traffic fine when you're not in agreement? Why cooperate with the police when they serve you with a warrant from county or district court? Why defer to any authority at all?

[Jim Noble]

Defending the exceptions clause of Article III is very, very important.

This Court has tipted up to overruling ex parte McCardle, and they've got one toe in the water.

[AJFavish]

When even Scalia, Thomas and Rhenquist will make false statements about the facts and the law and the conservative pundits are silent, were are in deep trouble:

http://www.allanfavish.com/ajf_response_to_decision.htm

Regards,

Allan J. Favish
http://www.allanfavish.com

[rebelyell7]

They're not dictators. If they are truly going against the will of the American people, the proper recourse would be to impeach them, which they can't do anything about, not to ignore one of the three branches of government. If we start doing this sort of thing we'll be a banana republic like Mexico in no time. What a garbage article.

[calmseas]

It has been said that "we get the government that we deserve." Never has there been a political adage that rang more true. The problem of government losing touch with the people is as much a symptom of people losing touch with the government as it is a problem in its own right.

This is still a representative democracy. If all of those apathetic voters would get off their rear ends and VOTE, there would be meaningful change in Washington and, with a little more time, among the Supreme Court. We have the capacity to hold our elected and unelected officials responsible. We just need to be involved in the process.

The spectrum of citizens is interesting: On the one end we have the soldier in Iraq who gives his last full measure of life defending our freedoms, including our right to vote; at the other end, we have the beer-guzzling couch potato who has no interest in where this country is going and rarely if ever feels the necessity to vote. What a great country, hey.