3 ms·
For starters, the supreme court would not do anything until (unless!) someone challenges the treasury ruling, and there would inevitably be some nontrivial time
by PeterisP 3y ago
For starters, the supreme court would not do anything until (unless!) someone challenges the treasury ruling, and there would inevitably be some nontrivial time gap between the two sentences in your scenario of "Imagine they decide to interpret it that way. The Supreme Court rules against them." during which they would pay out the funds.
But after a binding ruling is issued, I'd assume there would be personal sanctions, liability and likely criminal charges against any individuals involved in defying that decision.
- idontpost 3y ago[dead]
- eli 3y agoThat seems like a dodge. There is always someone willing to challenge anything the federal government does. It would be entirely up to the Court how quickly they'd want to hear the case. It could be immediate if they want.
- ndriscoll 3y ago> I'd assume there would be personal sanctions, liability and likely criminal charges against any individuals involved in defying that decision. The president would almost certainly not want to take responsibility for the resulting economic implosion, and would order the executive to ignore the court ruling. Then it comes down to a mix of loyalties and individuals' beliefs around what would cause the least damage. It's far more likely that a ruling like that would be the end of the court's power.
- ProjectArcturis 3y agoYes, in practice a ruling like this might remind everyone that there is no clause in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court the power to review the other branches' actions. They grabbed that power themselves in Marbury v Madison.
- wolverine876 3y ago> But after a binding ruling is issued, I'd assume there would be personal sanctions, liability and likely criminal charges against any individuals involved in defying that decision. That's not accurate: Power in the US government is of course separated between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, and each has checks and balances on the other two. One check the executive has on the judicial is to ignore its rulings. The executive can't do it all the time, obviously, and afaik the US also generally embraces 'judicial supremacy', the idea that the judicial branch generally gets the last word. Also, I don't recall the judiciary sanctioning indiviuals in the executive branch, but I could be wrong [Edit: of course I'm wrong, see below]. I would guess they've never sanctioned a president. Perhaps the most famous use of this power was in Worcester v. Georgia; when his favored side lost the case, President Andrew Jackson reputedly said, "[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." (Inspiring rhetoric, but it led eventually to Native Americans having their land stolen and many being marched to their deaths.)
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> I don't recall the judiciary sanctioning indiviuals in the executive branch Every time someone in the executive has been held in contempt of court in relation to (but usually exceeding) their official duties, the judiciary sanctioned individuals in the executive branch. That said, the President could pardon everyone involved.
- wolverine876 3y agoThat's right. Somehow I wasn't thinking of it.
- tonyarkles 3y agoPresumably “contempt of court” would apply here, which could definitely be applied to the individuals running the bank.
- eli 3y agoSo would the President's pardon power
- tonyarkles 3y agoThat'd be a sight to behold all around! A presidential pardon for someone found in contempt by the supreme court.
- FireBeyond 3y agoI don't think a pardon applies to contempt, as it's not a conviction, but a judicial process.