While I loathe and detest everything about Olbermann, he does have one interesting thing to say.... so how DOES the SCOTUS enforce its rulings? I suspect that Constitutionally it has something to do with lower courts, state- and county-level law enforcement, and the ability to issue writs against entities that defy SCOTUS decisions, but I'm not quite sure how that works.
Hmmm, yes, could be. I recall that Pres. Eisenhower (or was it Kennedy) called up the National Guard back in the civil rights days to integrate some schools in Arkansas and Tennessee.
If everyone followed the rule of law, then the other branches would fall in line. The enforcement question applies to the other branches as well. The executive can not enforce laws from congress, like how border enforcement just disappeared. Congress can keep passing unconstitutional gun control against the court, like red flag laws. The court can make up their own laws that were never passed by congress, like abortion.
Eisenhower had to bust out the guard to enforce the court order on school integration. It still took decades to get Alabama integrated since they just ignored the court.
Thomas wrote this order up in such a way that i think he wanted it to be somewhat unenforceable and to setup the next case. It says if the state doesn't give you a shall issue permit, sue them. It will wind through the court, where Thomas could then say that you had your chance State, permits are now unconstitutional. It would then be constitutional carry everywhere.
Well to your point, the court cannot and should not go beyond the absolute points contained in the case before it. These decisions are usually very narrow in scope, addressing ONLY the merits and faults of that particular case.
Anything beyond the case would be Judicial overreach.
While I loathe and detest everything about Olbermann, he does have one interesting thing to say.... so how DOES the SCOTUS enforce its rulings? I suspect that Constitutionally it has something to do with lower courts, state- and county-level law enforcement, and the ability to issue writs against entities that defy SCOTUS decisions, but I'm not quite sure how that works.
Anyone? Any Constitutional scholars here?
Hmmm, yes, could be. I recall that Pres. Eisenhower (or was it Kennedy) called up the National Guard back in the civil rights days to integrate some schools in Arkansas and Tennessee.
If everyone followed the rule of law, then the other branches would fall in line. The enforcement question applies to the other branches as well. The executive can not enforce laws from congress, like how border enforcement just disappeared. Congress can keep passing unconstitutional gun control against the court, like red flag laws. The court can make up their own laws that were never passed by congress, like abortion.
Eisenhower had to bust out the guard to enforce the court order on school integration. It still took decades to get Alabama integrated since they just ignored the court.
Thomas wrote this order up in such a way that i think he wanted it to be somewhat unenforceable and to setup the next case. It says if the state doesn't give you a shall issue permit, sue them. It will wind through the court, where Thomas could then say that you had your chance State, permits are now unconstitutional. It would then be constitutional carry everywhere.
Well to your point, the court cannot and should not go beyond the absolute points contained in the case before it. These decisions are usually very narrow in scope, addressing ONLY the merits and faults of that particular case.
Anything beyond the case would be Judicial overreach.