It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
papers.ssrn.com...
The Article makes four conclusions. First, the federal judiciary is willing to issue contempt findings against agencies and officials. Second, while several federal judges believe they can (and have tried to) attach sanctions (fines and imprisonment) to these findings, the higher courts have exhibited a virtually complete unwillingness to allow sanctions, at times swooping down at the eleventh hour to rescue an agency from incurring a budget-straining fine or its top official from being thrown in jail. Third, the higher courts, even as they unfailingly thwart sanctions in all but a few minor instances, have bent over backward to avoid making pronouncements that sanctions are categorically unavailable, deliberately keeping the sanctions issue in a state of low salience and at least nominal legal uncertainty. Fourth, even though contempt findings are practically devoid of sanctions, they have a shaming effect that gives them substantial if imperfect deterrent power.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pheonix358
Current politics are not relevant to the purpose of this discussion.
What if the Supreme Court were to issue an order and the government did not comply. That hasn't happened as far as I know, but hypothetically speaking?
What recourse is there? Is it not the responsibility of the DOJ to enforce the law? Is not the Court the ultimate authority on the law?
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DexterRiley
The buck stops there. Sounds good.
But it ends up back where it started. What happens to the order? How is it executed?
It really seems that action against the concerned department head would be the most obvious course, and the DOJ, Congress, or the president could do that. I think.
I wonder what happens next.
Those closest to the situation who are capable of implementing the court order may take unilateral action.
Current politics are not relevant to the purpose of this discussion.
Fine. You know that there is a procedure for that, right? Or do you favor tar and feathers? A hanging tree?
Nice try, but politics from the bench should see the Judges turfed out on their backsides.
I guess you put kids in prison with their parents.