How are Supreme Court orders enforced?

[renaissance_warrior]

I would guess that simply filing a 1983 civil rights lawsuit would probably be the most expedicious and the most costly to the city.

Let's take a look at the facts and put it in another context. Let's say that I want to vote. I need to pay a large fee, submit to fingerprints, have a criminal background check, take a writing and vision exam, have to submit my personal property for inspection, and then wait anywhere from a month to 3 moths before I recieve an answer. In the meantime, if anyone breaks into my home and I kill them, I'm going to jail. Ever hear of the 'Jim Crow' laws? If gun control isn't racism, I don't know what is. Why? Because we are a class of citizens who CHOOSE to be armed. That my friends, is our vote. Comments?

 

[TallPine]

Failure to enforce a SCOTUS ruling would be grounds for impeachment.

So then what ???

The executive branch has all the guns

 

[armedandsafe]

The executive branch has all the guns

I just went back and checked my rack. I just checked my hip. They don't have mine.

Pops

 

[TallPine]

Okay ... I meant the Supreme Court and Congress doesn't have armed forces to go fight the President

 

[XD_fan]

From the wiki, for what its worth:

The power of the Supreme Court of the United States to issue a writ of mandamus outside its appellate jurisdiction was the controversy that led the Court to delve into the much more significant issue of judicial review in the famed case of Marbury v. Madison. In modern practice, the Court has effectively abolished the issuance of mandamus and other prerogative writs although it theoretically retains the power to do so.

In the context of mandamus from a United States Court of Appeals to a United States District Court, the Supreme Court has ruled that the appellate courts have discretion to issue mandamus to control an abuse of discretion by the lower court in unusual circumstances, where there is a compelling reason not to wait for an appeal from a final judgment. This discretion is exercised very sparingly.

The authority of the United States district courts to issue mandamus has been expressly abrogated by Rule 81(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but relief in the nature of mandamus can be had by other remedies provided for in the Rules, where provided by statute, or by use of the District Court's equitable powers.

 

[silentpoet]

I would love to see Fenty in his new orange jumpsuit cuffed to Nagin.

 

[TallPine]

You can't serve a writ on a rat

 

[Volponi]

Please excuse me for going a little off-topic for a moment...

I've seen a lot of mentions here about the idea of filing civil-rights lawsuits in federal court, referencing section 1983. I haven't read (or seen any links to) the applicable statute, but according to what others have said in this forum, it would seem that 1983 applies to any government employee - federal, state, county, or city.

I might be (and probably am) misunderstanding this, but if ALL government employees fall under this 'sword of damocles', then doesn't that automatically invalidate the usual 'good-faith' exemption from personal lawsuits that is normally granted to our law-enforcement officers?

And even more off-topic (honestly, my main reason for asking), would this apply to the TSA as well? If I remember correctly, they fall under the DHS which makes them federal employees.

The hiring criteria for the TSA seems to be mostly nonexistent - It wouldn't surprise me at all if the only questions asked in the job interview were:

-----------------------
“Do you crave the feeling of exercising power over others?”

Have you been a complete failure at every 'legitimate' job you've ever tried to hold?"

"Are you desperately seeking self-validation? Would it help you to feel more powerful or 'important' if you were allowed to act like a bully, asserting your 'authority' over others for no particular reason?

Would you enjoy confiscating other people's property without any justification other than the knowledge that you can get away with it, without repercussions?"

Is $8.00 per hour an acceptable wage?
-----------------------

So when a TSA flunkee won't let me on a plane with my cellphone, or my (fill in the blank with any expensive gadget), and the only choices left to me are either missing my flight (costing me hundreds of dollars) or surrendering my rightfully owned possessions (also, potentially costing me hundreds of dollars), is a lawsuit under 1983 viable?

Despite my sarcasm, I'm not joking about the question - I'm VERY intrigued by this - I travel a lot, and I'd genuinely appreciate input from any of the legal scholars here on THR - If it sounds viable, I might pursue it - As it stands now, the TSA doesn't appear to answer to anybody at all - Bankrupting their individual employees might change that. If the great minds here at THR think it's worthwhile, I'll put my legal team on the idea.

Surely, it's small pickings compared to the topic of the thread, but sometimes you can put more meat on the table by taking a lot of small game, rather than holding out for the large elusive elk

Again, I apologize for the off-topic question, but I'm interested to hear the opinions of our THR legal experts – I must confess, that's not my only motivation here. I also hope to plant the seed of this meme into the minds of others, who might find new avenues for it to grow and flourish, This 1983 lawsuit idea sounds like it has a lot of very promising possibilities.

 

[ilbob]

It is entirely possible that most of the lower courts will see the wisdom of incorporation, and adopt the idea that it is, rather than rule against it and forcing it through the court system.

Even semi-rogue courts like the 9th appellate in CA might look closely at things and decide there is no reason to fight a losing battle. They might also decide it is a lot easier for the SC to undo something in the future if they have not previously ruled on the issue, so might want to give a future SC room to maneuver by ruling in favor of the 2A for now, hoping future SC appointments can take it back.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

ilbob

That makes a lot of sense. But, it'll hinge upon whether such a positive ruling is appealed to the Supreme Court by the loser and granted cert.

It'll be timed to coincide with whomever is on the Court as you say.

Woody

 

[crebralfix]

Volponi,

Very interesting question...perhaps a new thread would bring this the attention it deserves?

The trick is to determine whether or not signing that airline ticket constitutes signing a contract. SCOTUS determined long ago that we have unlimited right to contract. If that's the case, then check the ticket...is there a reference to some law somewhere? It has to be published somewhere. If signing the ticket means you agree to abide by X agency's policies...then you've just signed your Fourth Amendment rights away.

 

[Sam]

You can't serve a writ on a rat

"Mr Rat...


My writ here says you must stop
eating Chen Lee's cornmeal forthwith.

It's a rat writ, writ for a rat,
and this is lawful service of same.

See, he doesn't pay any attention to me.
(BLAM)
Outside is the place for shooting!

I'm serving some papers.

That was your job in the first place!


You can't serve papers
on a rat, baby sister.


You've got to kill him or let him be."

A converse between Marshall Cogburn and Matty Ross.