The State of Georgia ignored it, not Jackson. The court could have ordered Federal Marshalls to enforce the decision, but it never did. It is a most disgraceful episode in the history of constitutional law, but it does not support your contention that the president can defy a decision he doesn't like.
If the court had ordered marshalls out to enforce it, and the Jackson had refused, then you would have a point. But that's not what happened.
It’s not common but it’s there in a direct conflict between the two branches.
Of course, there's conflict, but not the kind of conflict you speak of, i.e. the president defying the court.
Also Roosevelt, Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant changed or attempted to change the number of Supreme Court justices when they disagreed with the Court.
As far as I can remember, they only threatened to do it, but never actually went through with it.
Nevertheless, even if they had done it, it still wouldn't support your assertion that a president can simply defy a court decision.
Packing a court, and defying its rulings, are not the same thing.
The power of the Congress to remove jurisdiction from the Court also indicates the duty of the Congress
Removing jurisdiction is not the same things a defying a decision.
Don’t forget the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education which held that “separate but equal” was unconstitutional.
Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy both understood that this decision was a final and authoritative interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court and federalized the national guard to enforce the Supreme Court pronouncement in both Arkansas and Alabama.
The U.S. Marshalls fall under the Department of Justice’s jurisdiction, I think, which is under the President. The reason the Court didn’t issue further orders was that it would have precipitated a Constitutional crises that they would have lost in the sense of not being able to enforce their decision (since they do not have the power to enforce laws at all, but only to judge). There is no practical recourse but public opinion in support of the Court if a President does not enforce a ruling of the Court. Understand that I am not saying that this is something that should be done lightly, but if there is a rogue Supreme Court the President could well be in the right to protect the Constitution AGAINST the Court, and in my opinion could be duty bound by oath to do so.
Put another way, the entire idea of separation of powers is that each branch of government would enforce it’s powers against the other branches encroachment. A view that the Court must be obeyed in all circumstances would leave the President and Congress toothless in any conflict with the Court over their perogatives. The Congress can remove jurisdiction, the President can not enforce a holding, the court size can be expanded or shrunk, the Court can declare the actions of Congress or President unconstitutional. At that point it becomes a political conflict. Changing the court or expost removing jurisdiction could not be a sufficient remedy if the Court requires an irreversible action (say release of enemy spies in war). We see a lot of conflicts between President and Congress over authority, far less frequently with Congress and the Court or President and the Court, but it’s the same principle involved. If the Court loses credibility with the public it loses it’s only weapon against the other branches . . .