This is a revelation to most people, because we are so used to blind obedience to the Supreme Court.
Let me give you an extreme example to prove the point, and then a more specific example from today's headlines. The Constitution give the President the right to veto legislation. Suppose he does, and the Congress falls two votes short of an override. The Supreme Court then declares that the 2/3 requirement need not be followed, because it is archaic, or some such justification. Must the President accept the Supreme Court's decision?
The Constitution is capable of being read and understood by non-lawyers. When the Supreme Court clearly violates the Constitution, must its dictates be followed? Or was our system set up intentionally so that the branches could decide for themselves what the Constitution says? I believe the latter, and that when the Supreme Court opines, it does so with authority, but not always absolute authority. When it encroaches on the legislative or executive powers, it can and should be ignored or battled.
Now, another example. Suppose that we are at war. A war authorized by Congress. Further suppose that the Supreme Court has 5 justices who are against the war, and decides to interfere. They order the President not to attack the enemy, claiming that it would violate the due process rights of American soldiers to risk their lives in a dangerous mission. Or they claim that an attack would violate international law, which we must uphold, based on the Nuremburg precedents. The basis for the ruling is not important to this hypothetical, just that they make a ruling that tells the President how to exercise his powers as commander in chief of the military.
The President would have a duty to ignore the ruling, and exercise his power as commander in chief. He could perhaps explain why he is ignoring the Supreme Court, as it would be important to explain such a momentous decision to the people. But ultimately, it would be up to him to decide whether the Supreme Court could restrict his powers.
If the Congress doesn't agree, they can impeach him. It would be an impeachable offense to ignore a proper ruling of the Supreme Court on a matter of law rightly in its purview. If the voters don't agree, they can vote him or his party out at the next election. AND, if the Supreme Court does these things, its members can also be impeached, for violating their duties to the Constitution. Those are the checks and balances, and they can work, if applied properly. Blind obedience does not allow any check to the Supreme Court, and it has gotten used to that blind obedience, pushing its limits ever farther.
Maybe we need a good impeachment, of someone who has admitted that he does NOT follow the Constitution in his rulings. Paging Justice Breyer.
Sure.Just as soon as you win 67 senate seats for Republicans - not counting any RINOs.
The truth is that there are more than 3 branches of government; journalism arranged the threatened impeachment which induced President Nixon to resign - and did not do so when x42 was in the dock. And journalism sets the stage for the actions of the Supreme Court. Whatever journalism will scorn, most Supreme Court justices will tend to eshew.
And that "fourth branch" is really the only reason that the left has any political strength at all.
Problems start when all three branches of government decide to ignore the Constitution - like in Maryland v. Craig, when the SCOTUS sided with them and concluded that the Confrontation Clause does not require confrontation, because the interest of the state "outweighs" constitutional text (it would be actually funny if not scary)...