[mullingitover]

If the executive branch is ignoring court orders, the constitution is de facto suspended. It’s in the ‘constitutional crisis’ phase when they’re threatening to ignore the courts. When they’re actually doing it, there is no longer a working constitution.

The remedies are to pray that the US Marshals don’t break their oath to the constitution and are willing to arrest their bosses for contempt of court when the courts order it.

[from-nibly]

The problem is you can't just arrest your bosses. That would be a military coup.

[mullingitover]

If the leaders of the DOJ commit federal crimes do they just get a pass? Of course not. The marshals must do their jobs and arrest people the courts lawfully order them to, regardless of their title. That’s not a coup, that’s the constitution working normally.

The coup already happened when the executive usurped the judicial branch’s authority.

[TheNewsIsHere]

Something I’ve noticed is that a surprising (to me) number of people I generally think of as “smart” say things like that.

“You can’t arrest your boss” or “if the President is in charge of the executive, why can’t he decide these things?”

And it continues to surprise me. I take these queries in good faith with respect to the people in my life that I know who respond in this way.

But it leaves me wondering how others think the world works. Do people want to live in a world where one branch has unchecked power and may disregard with impunity the checks and balances in our government?

Why shouldn’t and why can’t a rogue President be contained by lawful means? Why shouldn’t the Marshal’s be able to arrest someone at the direction of the court? That’s how it works for everyone else.

It’s by no means an unsettled question as to whether Presidents are accountable to the law and Constitution. They are. Full stop.

Is it just that having a President that actively ignores and breaks laws in plain sight is just so new? How long do we wait for the novelty to wear off?

Of course the functioning of all of this is predicated upon good faith and the absence of an almost complete takeover of the system by bootlickers.

[Volundr]

> I take these queries in good faith

Especially if these are people in your own life instead of randoms on the Internet, it's probably worth revisiting this. A great many people I know in my life saying things like this were spinning a very different yarn when it was Obama, the ACA or his executive orders. Or Biden doing... Well anything. In other words it's not good faith. It's a post-facto rationalization to justify whatever Trump is doing.

It's of course harder to do this exercise for a random stranger on the Internet. It's always possible this person was arguing the same for other Presidents. But I'd bet dollars to donuts few were.

[kccoder]

Disagree. The executive disregarding the constitution (judicial oversight) is a coup. Arresting the offenders is bringing the government back into constitutional order. Seems the opposite of a coup to me.

[seanp2k2]

Guess who the boss of the US Marshals is? Former Trump attorney and 2020 election denier Pam Bondi. Good luck with that.