[bsder]

And if the executive branch decides to ignore the ruling, there isn't anything the Supreme Court can do about it.

See: Worcester v. Georgia

This is one of the problems with a Supreme Court that is making rulings that the majority of people don't agree with. If the Supreme Court loses its legitimacy and the other branches simply start ignoring it, it will take a lot of work to get any power back.

[Guy_w_Keyboard]

You guys aren't wrong. I believe it was Ben Franklin who famously said, when asked of the new government in the US, what kind it was, he replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." Any democracy is, obviously, only as just or as free as its electorate. As George Carlin pointed out in one of his standups, "If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Garbage in, garbage out."

My point is, however, that one man alone cannot be strong enough to bring it all down. There is enough distribution of power for the system to be robust. By irony, the very political tribalism which is ubiquitously hated and lamented by pundits itself creates a sort of political competition; there is very high incentive to hold the other party or incumbent(s) accountable when they abuse their power or make mistakes, as this benefits themselves politically. Of course, the downside to this system, as we've witnessed in recent years, is that both parties are quick to criticize the other side for their sins, but once in power they commit the very same sins with no self-awareness of the hypocrisy. Although, I wonder how much of that is due to McConnell and the GOP's loose morals, vs. the GOP itself being nigh unrecognizable from what it once was. The party of Reagan, Bush, and Romney is no more; the latter of which I was just reading, described in the press as a "pariah within his own party."