re: SCOTUS declines to hear DACA appeal

well other than throwing us into a full-blown constitutional crisis. There would a contempt hearing, and then who knows from there. No precedent for this, but I find it hard to believe that trumps survives flouting a federal court order for long.

So, is the next step for Trump to write another EO enforcing new laws?

Where are we at on this?

quote:

---

well other than throwing us into a full-blown constitutional crisis.

---

quote:

---

No precedent for this

---

If he did, he wouldn’t be the only President to defy the judiciary. The first was Thomas Jefferson. In December, 1807, at Jefferson’s insistence, Congress passed the Embargo Act, a drastic—and absurdly self-destructive—attempt to punish Britain for seizing American merchant ships; the act cut off all U.S. exports to any nation. In the Mississippi Territory, produce rotted in barns; in New England, dockworkers and sailors sat idle. Then, six months later, a Jefferson appointee to the Supreme Court, William Johnson, ruled that the President had exceeded his authority. To Jefferson, this marked a bitter betrayal. He took the extraordinary step of soliciting a dissenting opinion from his Attorney General, Caesar A. Rodney, distributing it to the press, and sending it to the customs agents who continued to enforce the embargo. Johnson, aggrieved, published a rebuttal of his own: the logic of Jefferson’s position, he argued, was “not that the executive have done right, but that the judiciary had no power to prevent their doing wrong.” Jefferson had the last word; the policy remained in effect until he left office, in 1809.
The most notable case of what scholars, euphemistically, call “nonacquiescence” came in 1861, at the start of the Civil War. That April, two weeks after the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter, Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus between Philadelphia and Washington—a corridor rife with secessionists who had been burning railroad bridges and cutting telegraph lines. Lincoln’s order gave his commanders the right to imprison suspected saboteurs indefinitely, without so much as an indictment. A month later, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney—best known and much reviled today for his opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford, in 1857—issued a categorical decision that only Congress, not the President, could suspend the writ. In a book on Lincoln and Taney, published in 2006, James F. Simon, of New York Law School, observed that the Chief Justice’s opinion had “a gauzy, surreal quality,” giving no indication that the nation faced an existential threat. (Taney himself favored secession.) Lincoln rejected the ruling and its reasoning. He would not agree that he, or any President, should permit a single clause of the Constitution to put the whole of the Union at risk. “Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?” Lincoln asked a special session of Congress, that July. It was, of course, a rhetorical question. The order remained in force.
Facing an altogether different kind of threat—the Great Depression—in 1933, Franklin Roosevelt made a series of moves to rein in the gold supply, part of his strategy to increase prices for farm products and consumer goods. In January of 1935, the Supreme Court, dominated by conservative Justices, considered a pair of legal challenges to the policy. An adverse decision, Roosevelt and his advisers believed, could send the U.S. Treasury into bankruptcy and the economy into chaos. He mulled his options. Court-packing—adding seats and filling them with liberals—was discussed and quickly dismissed. (A full-fledged and ill-fated plan to pack the Court would come two years later.) Instead, Roosevelt inched toward “outright defiance,” in the words of one aide, and dictated a speech to have on hand. “To carry through the decision of the Court to its logical and inescapable end will so endanger the people of this Nation that I am compelled to look beyond the letter of the law,” he was prepared to say. He didn’t need to, as it turned out. In two 5–4 decisions, the Court upheld his policy. That afternoon, in his delight, Roosevelt performed the speech for a small audience of exuberant aides. LINK

quote:

---

No precedent for this, but I find it hard to believe that trumps survives flouting a federal court order for long

---

There was no precedent for Obama ignoring actual laws.
What repercussions did he face?

quote:

---

Decide what...the established power allowing one POTUS to nullify the EO of a previous POTUS??

---

This is what I'm confused about. Didn't Trump's EO just basically nullify the idiot's?

Why can't Trump just write a new order immediately?

...today?

Is this what the SCOTUS is essentially telling him to do?

Well you examples aren't really comparable.

-Jefferson - Congress passed the Embargo, also in the early days of judicial review post Marbury

-Lincoln - decent example, but he feared the dissolution of the union

- Roosevelt only considered defying prior to getting favorable rulings.

quote:

---

Well you examples aren't really comparable.

---

So what? That was then...this is now. Those were the topics of the time...this is a current topic of concern.
Stop living in the past baw.

quote:

---

How am I living in the past. I wasn't the one that brought up the examples.

---

Just a goofin'.

quote:

---

Decide what...the established power allowing one POTUS to nullify the EO of a previous POTUS??

---

The courts should decide if an law/action enacted through force of an executive order is constitutional. If it's found unconstitutional, then it will rollback without a Trump EO.

quote:

---

Why bother?? Just void Obamas EO. One and done.

---

But he hasn't only used EOs to void Obama's EOs. He's used them to enact some of his own policies. Those will get overturned by a Democrat POTUS. It's never-ending, and it's stupid.