First of all apoligies if this has already been talked about and feel free to direct me to the proper thread. I was just watching a video of Jeffrey Toobin explain what could happen. The problem is there is no historical precedent for a president completley defying the court as per Toobin. He mentioned Nixon wanting to refuse releasing the Watergate tapes but ultimately complied. So what if President Trump would decide against complying in any one of these cases? The one being refrenced here is the Rhode Island case regarding funding. Who would hold him accountable? In a regular case a marshall would enforce, but Toobin says that's highly unlikely the DOJ would enforce this action and it's not like the President would go to jail. So this would be completely uncharted territory. I really hope we never come to this situation, but it's food for thought and I'm sure the Democrats are coming up with a stategy in case this becomes a reality.
What happens if a President is in contempt of the federal court?
- Thread starter Eppy99
- Start date
So…..Mr. Toobin thinks it’s a sticky situation?
The Ct could impose civil and criminal penalties. Could impose criminal on staff executing orders. A mess bc Doj would be responsible. But there’s still congress with the $. States/federalism. And ignoring precedent wouldn’t bode well for midterms
Democrat judges blatantly ignoring the Constitution shouldn’t bode well for Democrats. These cases will all be overturned by SCOTUS possibly unanimously.
It certainly aroused his interest.
There’s a reason he didn’t do this piece standing up.
I think he's worried the left hand might not know what the right hand is doing.
Ted Cruz warned us in 2014.
“We have never seen a president like President Obama who if he doesn’t agree with the federal law he refuses to enforce it and he openly defies it, over and over and over again. He simply disregards the law, and that ought to concern everybody, not just Republicans but Democrats, Independents, Libertarians," Cruz said, accusing the president of wielding unchecked power.
"If a president can pick and choose which laws to follow, he's not a president," Cruz added. "That's dangerous."
He also said in another clip that some day a Republican president would do the same crap and we all should be outraged then too. But somehow, Ted is quiet these days.
www.msnbc.com
“We have never seen a president like President Obama who if he doesn’t agree with the federal law he refuses to enforce it and he openly defies it, over and over and over again. He simply disregards the law, and that ought to concern everybody, not just Republicans but Democrats, Independents, Libertarians," Cruz said, accusing the president of wielding unchecked power.
"If a president can pick and choose which laws to follow, he's not a president," Cruz added. "That's dangerous."
He also said in another clip that some day a Republican president would do the same crap and we all should be outraged then too. But somehow, Ted is quiet these days.
Cruz blasts Obama for 'breathtaking' 'lawlessness'
Sen. Ted Cruz blasted Pres. Obama for a "pattern of lawlessness" Tuesday while new video shows a GOP Congressman showing support for impeachment.
www.msnbc.com
On what grounds would these cases be overturned? Isn’t this more about the balance of power and how much control the the presidency should have?
Ted Cruz warned us in 2014.
“We have never seen a president like President Obama who if he doesn’t agree with the federal law he refuses to enforce it and he openly defies it, over and over and over again. He simply disregards the law, and that ought to concern everybody, not just Republicans but Democrats, Independents, Libertarians," Cruz said, accusing the president of wielding unchecked power.
"If a president can pick and choose which laws to follow, he's not a president," Cruz added. "That's dangerous."
He also said in another clip that some day a Republican president would do the same crap and we all should be outraged then too. But somehow, Ted is quiet these days.
Cruz blasts Obama for 'breathtaking' 'lawlessness'
Sen. Ted Cruz blasted Pres. Obama for a "pattern of lawlessness" Tuesday while new video shows a GOP Congressman showing support for impeachment.
Remembering the Time Andrew Jackson Decided to Ignore the Supreme Court In the Name of Georgia’s Right to Cherokee Land
“John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” Though President Jackson’s exact words were a bit different, the sentiment remained. Enforcing the ruling meant not …
sustainatlanta.com
I don't have time to go into all the details but this is just off the top of my head...
If the sitting President of the United States were found in contempt of a federal court, it would raise significant legal and constitutional questions. Here’s what could happen:
If the sitting President of the United States were found in contempt of a federal court, it would raise significant legal and constitutional questions. Here’s what could happen:
1. Civil vs. Criminal Contempt
- Civil Contempt: If the President refused to comply with a court order, the court could impose fines or other measures to compel compliance. However, enforcing such penalties against a sitting President would be legally complex.
- Criminal Contempt: If the President were found to have willfully defied a court order or obstructed justice, the court could theoretically impose fines or imprisonment. However, the Justice Department’s longstanding policy states that a sitting President cannot be criminally prosecuted while in office.
2. Separation of Powers Issues
- Federal courts have authority over legal matters, but the President leads the executive branch, creating a potential constitutional crisis if the President refuses to comply.
- Enforcement would likely depend on Congress, which has the power to impeach the President for "high crimes and misdemeanors," including willful defiance of court orders.
3. Possible Consequences
- Political Pressure: Congress and the public could push for compliance through hearings and investigations.
- Fines or Sanctions: Courts might impose fines, though collecting them from a sitting President would be unprecedented.
- Impeachment: If the contempt were severe, Congress could consider it grounds for impeachment.
Historical Context
- No sitting President has ever been jailed or directly punished for contempt of court. However, courts have ruled against Presidents in cases like United States v. Nixon (1974), where the Supreme Court ordered President Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes. He complied, under pressure, rather than defying the ruling.
Bottom Line
While a court could hold a sitting President in contempt, enforcing penalties would likely require political action, such as impeachment, rather than direct judicial enforcement. It would set a major constitutional precedent.
Two wrongs don't make a right. In other words, if the other guy violates the law, the solution is not to violate it right back and when people complain say "that other guy did it too so it's OK!"
Do you believe the preceding paragraph?
Did you just try to pass off an AI generated answer as something that just came off the top of your head?
So the precident is to ignore the ruling of the court? And given congress is controlled by the Republicans he has more leverage? Is that the gamble?
Such a little weasel, that guy. Remember, “Donald, you sniveling coward!” Lol.Ted Cruz warned us in 2014.
“We have never seen a president like President Obama who if he doesn’t agree with the federal law he refuses to enforce it and he openly defies it, over and over and over again. He simply disregards the law, and that ought to concern everybody, not just Republicans but Democrats, Independents, Libertarians," Cruz said, accusing the president of wielding unchecked power.
"If a president can pick and choose which laws to follow, he's not a president," Cruz added. "That's dangerous."
He also said in another clip that some day a Republican president would do the same crap and we all should be outraged then too. But somehow, Ted is quiet these days.
Cruz blasts Obama for 'breathtaking' 'lawlessness'
Sen. Ted Cruz blasted Pres. Obama for a "pattern of lawlessness" Tuesday while new video shows a GOP Congressman showing support for impeachment.
Yep, and it came in that exact format as well. What are the odds.
I thought it would be obvious.
The crisis would come if he ignores a SCt order. Let's see what happens.
His press secretary said this was just a freeze, not a permanent stoppage, by the way.
I like it. I'm going to start adding bolded subheadings in all my posts.
A friendly Congress can definitely give a President the freedom to act with more authority. Lincoln had his allies in Congress retroactively authorize his suspension of habeas corpus to put the issue to rest. Nixon wanted to refuse to release the Watergate tapes, but he didn't have the support in Congress to win that fight, so he released them.
These judges know they can’t make the rulings they are making. They know it’s unconstitutional but don’t care. Big big difference.
Yea, I get that. It just seems if any sitting president is going to push the limits of executive power we're going to see it throughout the next 4 years. He's already shown a willingness to try and change the results of an election. With that said I do think there's an element of seeing just how far he can go.....but that doesn't mean he won't defy the court.
Sometimes I like to use green check boxes and X's in place of my bullet points..
See post #6 here - https://indiana.forums.rivals.com/t...should-be-ius-next-coach.250888/#post-4282678
It's unconstitutional for judges to rule on questions of law? Do you even any longer believe in the necessity of a judicial branch?
Presidents since at least Bush, probably all the way back to Jefferson or Adams, have pushed the limits of executive power.
No one knows how it would play out, and anyone who claims they do is full of it.
I mentioned this is another thread. It’s only a matter of time until he says, “No. The order/decision is bullshit and I’m not complying.” Then we’ve entered constitutional crisis land.
The Dems can strategize all they want, but they can’t force his hand.
Not like this guy’s gonna do. Musk and Vance are already teeing it up.
It was the last line that you've since edited out that made me laugh the hardest.
"Would you like to know more about past presidents and court decisions?"
That was a question for the forum, but I don't have enough time to share my unlimited bullet-point wisdom.
If you would like to know, I could probably write a short essay in 100 to 300 words or less. Just give me about 30 seconds to collect my thoughts.
Could you please do it using the voice and vocabulary of the actor Samuel L. Jackson?
omg... here you go (in 150 words or less)
(In Samuel L. Jackson’s voice)
Aight, listen up! No sitting U.S. President has ever been straight-up held in contempt of a federal court—why? ‘Cause that’d spark a damn constitutional crisis! But that don’t mean Presidents haven’t been checked by the courts.
Take Richard Nixon—the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Nixon (1974) told his ass to hand over the Watergate tapes. He ain't like it, but he complied. Then there's Bill Clinton, who was held in civil contempt in 1999 for giving "misleading" testimony in the Paula Jones case—fined $90K!
But jailin’ a President? That’s a whole other level. The courts can bark, but enforcing it? That’s Congress' job, and impeachment is the real hammer. So yeah, the courts got power, but ain't nobody dragging a sitting President out in cuffs… yet.
Just off the top of my head, it might go something like this.
**"Oh, so the President wants to play games with a federal court? Let me break it down for you. If a sitting President gets slapped with contempt, things get real messy, real fast. Now, technically, a judge could hit ‘em with fines, sanctions, maybe even say, ‘Haul his ass in!’ But let’s be real—ain’t nobody rolling up to the White House with handcuffs like it’s a damn action movie.
Instead, Congress might step in, throw around words like ‘impeachment,’ and start making moves. That’s when the real heat turns up. And don’t forget the people—oh, they’ll have something to say about a president straight-up ignoring a court order.
Now, history tells us presidents don’t usually test the courts too hard—just ask Nixon. He tried to hold out on those Watergate tapes ‘til the Supreme Court shut that down. And guess what? He gave ‘em up! Because defying a federal court ain’t a damn joke—it’s a fast track to a constitutional crisis, and nobody wants that smoke."**
That got the energy you were looking for? 😆
150 words and not a single "motherf*cker?" I'm not buying it.
(In Samuel L. Jackson’s voice, with some spice but keeping it real)
Aight, let’s break this shit down! No sitting U.S. President has ever been slapped with straight-up federal contempt charges ‘cause that’d be one hell of a constitutional mess. But don’t think these mother****ers ain’t been checked!
Richard Nixon? The Supreme Court in U.S. v. Nixon (1974) told his crooked ass to fork over the damn Watergate tapes. He bitched about it but had no choice. Bill Clinton? That smooth-talking bastard got hit with civil contempt in 1999 for lying under oath—had to cough up $90K!
But lemme tell you something—no judge is throwin’ a sitting President in cuffs. If they ignore the courts, it’s on Congress to drop the impeachment hammer. The law ain’t above the President, but damn sure ain't easy to nail him down either!
What makes you so certain about that?
I did see one here recently about a court forcing Trump's HHS to put back up removed websites (having to do with transgender stuff) by citing the Administrative Procedures Act (our old pals "arbitrary and capricious" strike again). That order seems likely to be pretty short-lived.
But I'm not nearly as sure as you are that Trump's going to prevail on some of these other ones. I guess time will tell.
Yes. Trump was well prepared for this. These activist judges will all be bitch slapped by SCOTUS. I promise you.
Now can you add some Clinton saxaphone in the background....
