[AustinBill]

It shouldn't. In many cases I agree the judiciary is overstepping its constitutional role. So what's the best way to fix that? If you say ignore them, then consider what that precedent would mean for the future of the rule of law. If a president can summarily ignore any court opinion they disagree with that's a terrible precedent.

As long as the Constitutional remedies for overreaching judges are in place they need to be exhausted even if some find the process slow and inefficient. Another reason why Trump's SCOTUS appointments are crucial to the long term health of the republic.

[odawg]

“If a president can summarily ignore any court opinion they disagree with that’s a terrible precedent.”

That terrible precedent was started quite a while back.

“John Marshall [Chief Justice of Supreme Court] has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.”

President Andrew Jackson