Hacker News Reader

Comment by foobarian | Hacker News Reader

What happens if the agencies refuse. Guess we'll find out?

The ultimate outcome is one that wasn't really anticipated by the Constitution. The general order of how things are supposed to go is:

1. A US court orders something.

2. The Executive Branch enforces that order, as it is responsible for the DOJ which is in turn responsible for the US Marshals (who enforce court rulings).

3. If those people do not enforce the rulings, Congress brings articles of impeachment and impeaches the President or others responsible.

4. Elect/appoint/elevate a new person to carry out the court order.

The Constitution doesn't really account for the possibility that 1/3 of the Senate would disagree with an ignored court order. So hard to say where it goes from there.

This sounds kind of like a majority attack with blockchains. If most of the government officials are against a court order, seems like it just won't happen i.e. even steps 3 and 4.

Conversely, presumably this is by design since a rogue judge could issue a bad court order and presumably there are mechanisms to deal with these that perhaps involve a large enough quorum disagreeing with and ignoring it.

rogue judges are handled by appeals, which is why there are multiple levels of courts, with the idea that if it went all the way to SCOTUS, it's no longer a rogue judge.

In addition to appeals there is also impeachment. There are plenty of ways to check a rogue judge without having to weaken the judicial branch itself.

If the executive is ok ignoring the courts, why would they respect the impeachment verdict from congress?

The constitution is premised on leaders respecting laws and norms.

> why would they respect the impeachment verdict from congress?

Supposedly at that stage everyone would stop following their instructions. This may be part of why Trump is so set on replacing huge swaths of the government with loyalists.

I do think there's a subtle distinction between "listening to the lawful President in defiance of a court order" and "listening to an unlawful President in defiance of the lawful President's order and a court order."

Keep in mind that people like the US Marshals and federal agents get guidance from the President all the time. Think "we won't arrest anyone for federal drug laws in states where recreational marijuana is legal."

The difference seems large enough that you could conceivably respond differently to one versus the other.

A president is unlawful if they defy a court order. Regardless of impeachment/conviction status. They are a traitor, legally speaking. The house or Senate's failure to enforce the constitution makes them traitors as well.

It's not about that. It's about drowning the federal government agencies in mounds of paperwork from malicious EOs and the resultant legal cases. Stop the work from getting done for long enough, and the right people will resign, paving the way for new, openly-politicized loyalists to take over.

Some people will be in contempt of court. Trump will issue some pardons, but will he issue pardons for his small helpers? Small helpers will have to worry about the next election.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com