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.
Yes, Marshalls are part of the DoJ, and they are appointed by the president. However, one of their duties is to enforce court rulings, so they do act upon judges' orders.
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).
Yes, they probably thought there was a good chance Jackson would have interfered and stopped the Marshalls from enforcing their decision. However, we we'll never know know whether he actually would have done so, your speculation not withstanding.
There is no practical recourse but public opinion in support of the Court if a President does not enforce a ruling of the Court.
Sure there is: impeachment. Failure to enforce a court ruling is a clear violation of the President's executive duty.
Now it's probably doubtful that Congress would have impeached Jackson had he prevented the Marshalls from enforcing the court's ruling. His party controlled Congress, and it wasn't generally sympathetic to the plight of the Cherokee.
On the other hand, if Mitt Romney had refused to abide by the Massachussetts SCJ decision on gay marraige, there's absolutely no doubt the Democraticly controlled state legislature would have impeached him, and they would have had solid constitutional grounds upon which to do it.
Do you honestly believe it was the wisest course of action for was Romney to get impeached for failing to enforce the decision? How on Earth do you think that would have aided the cause of traditional marriage?