Synkope1

Synkope1 t1_iyrk13j wrote

Oh yea, an example I heard recently was regarding a Oklahoma state supreme court case of the execution of Clayton Lockett. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma had issued a stay of execution (since the state has been unable to obtain the necessary drugs for a lethal injection and was planning to use an untested cocktail that would ultimately end up torturing him for 40 something minutes until he died) and the Governor issued and executive order that the execution would continue and the legislature began impeachment proceedings on the justices until they reversed the stay.

Just something to consider when the republicans eventually say "You can't just not listen to what the Supreme Court says!!"

5

Synkope1 t1_iypufy9 wrote

It's not just recently that the Supreme Court has been that way. They often have worked backward from the outcome they desired, it's how you get originalism and textualism as legal theories. The only thing that stops them from doing something as egregious as what you are saying is them trying to maintain the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. There is theoretically a line that the Supreme Court could cross in which state and federal governments would just say, "No, you've overstepped too far and we're not going to listen to that decision." The Supreme Court has no way to enforce its own decisions, it has to rely on other branches agreeing that its decisions are legitimate to enforce their decisions.

10