The battle of the judicial hammer

Can Trump ignore the decisions of the courts that blocked his decisions? Total claims against the US President so far 100

As the last survey of the University of Queennip, the rating of the Democratic faction of the US Congress is currently 21%. This is the lowest indicator in the history of one of the main American surveys. “In my century, the rating of the Democratic Party never dropped so low,” said at the end of the week the venerable political strategist Mark Penn, who once conducted polls for democrat Bill Clinton, and now the leading survey of Harris.

On Tuesday, Donald Trump’s speech was watched by 37 million Americans in front of both chambers of Congress, 76% of which (against 23%) rated it positively. This is an indicator of a survey of the SIB-Bi-ES television company. The SIN-EN survey also did not delight the Democrats: 69% versus 31%. I will make a reservation that among the respondents in both cases there were noticeably more Republicans. But the result is nevertheless for the opposition was joyless.

Having lost both the chambers of the Congress and the White House, the Democrats can do not oppose Trump until November 2026, when they have a notorious chance to regain in the intermediate elections at least the House of Representatives. As a rule, in the USA the opposition wins in these elections, in addition, the Republicans in the lower house of Congress are already a penny of 120: 115.

But the Democrats do not expect mercy from future elections and actively resist the trips of counter -revolution, which is chaotic, sometimes ruthless and therefore vulnerable to criticism. Resistance is not limited to criticism in the media and social networks and sometimes resorts to obstruction, as, for example, during Trump's throne speech in the congress, which was regularly interrupted by the democratic half of the hall, and one of its member-the 77-year-old delegate from Texas El Green-did it so loudly that he was taken out of the hall.

The next day, the House of Representatives produced Green reprimand, for which even 10 of his party comrades voted. When the speaker of the Chamber of Republican Mike Johnson was going to announce the text of the reprimand, the mighty bunch of democrats went to the middle of the hall and sang unnecessarily “We will overcome!”. The text remained unhappy.

The obstruction of the resistance at the meetings of the Republican congressmen and the voters were so increased that Johnson on Tuesday publicly called on the party’s comrades to seriously think whether they should perform at these events personally or to hold them remotely. The speaker claimed that the troublemakers trying to disrupt them are "sometimes paid."

The most powerful weapons of the opposition are court claims, the total number of which reached 100 pieces last weekend and for which the democrats began to prepare long before the elections, knowing about what to expect from Trump. The federal democrats preferred by the Democrats were appointed presidents from the same party and at the moment have made more than 20 preliminary decisions in favor of the plaintiffs.

Such decisions usually order the defendant to temporarily stop doing something, in this case, to carry out some kind of Trump's decree. Only a few order the defendant to do something. Then the judicial debate and the final decision of the judge are followed, which can be appealed in appeal installation and then in the US Supreme Court, if he agrees to accept him for consideration. Other claims can drag on for years.

In particular, at the moment, judges sitting in democratic (according to American terminology - “blue”) states and large cities, usually controlled by democrats, blocked mass dismissals of civil servants and transferring transgender women into men's prisons, refused the Ilona Mask, who was engaged in a reduction in state -owned information, forbade feds to hunt for closed information. In illegal houses in prayer houses and defrosted money, in the past, allocated by Congress to individual states and external assistance.

Trump's associates, primarily his vice president Jay Di Wence, offer to punish especially annoying judges with impeachment,

But this is an impossible task, if only because the US Senate requires 2/3 of the vote, which the Republicans have not yet been recruited. It is no coincidence that in the entire history of the United States, only eight federal judges were shifted by impeachment.

On March 7, “New York Times” placed an article by a prominent jurist, dean of the legal faculty of Berkeley Ervin Cheerinsky, considering the subject, which the author calls the most relevant today: what will happen if Trump simply refuses to fulfill the decision of the courts?

According to Chemerinsky, in this case, "the future of American constitutional democracy will be in question." At least in two cases, the judges have already stated that the new administration ignored their decisions.

In recent days, the courts have made a couple of decisions “which can patience Trump,” writes a lawyer. The first was the Supreme Court of last week, who supported the order of the Washington federal judge, who abolished the Trumpov ban on paying external assistance in the amount of $ 2 billion allocated in the past Congress.

Trump froze this money on the first day of his reign. His administration missed the deadline for their payment appointed by the judge. On Thursday, another federal judge, sitting in the tiny Rhodes Island, extended the order that the administration pays almost two dozens of US states and the Columbia County of several billion allocated to them by Congress.

As the judge stated, having blocked this money, the White House “set itself above the congress”, that is, the branch of power, which, according to the Constitution, is in charge of money in the United States.

The problem of those who are looking for ways to curb the Trump administration is, Chemerinsky writes that the US Constitution does not give the courts the authorities to force anyone to fulfill their decisions. This is being done by the executive authorities, which is now headed by Trump.

If he decides to ignore the decisions of the courts, then they will most likely be powerless to force him to fulfill them.

Optimists console themselves with the fact that in the history of the United States there have not yet been a case of a direct refusal of the president to fulfill the court decision. When the court decision greatly infringed on the president, he was furious, but in the end he was inclined to the judges of the judge. For example, in 1939, the Supreme Court rejected several points of the Roosevelt new course. Roosevelt was enraged and tried to increase the composition of the court in order to neutralize his rebellious majority, but did not abandon him a direct call. During the Korean War, the US Supreme Court declared the Constitution contradicting the order of President Truman to nationalize the country's steel plants. Truman was also indignant, but obeyed. When the court ordered Nixon to give a record of conversations in the White House, he knew that this would mean the end of his presidency, but still obeyed.

Joe Biden carried out the trial of the court on the schemes for forgiveness of loans taken by students for training, each time he performed with new schemes, but, strictly speaking, he did not directly violate the prohibitions.

Trump said on February 11: “I am always obeying ships!” - And he added that if he does not agree with their decision, he will protest him. But at about the same time, he wrote on the social network: "He who saves his country does not violate the law."

Go understand.

According to Professor Cheerinsky, "both Trump and his environment know that if he ultimately decides to disobey the court decisions, then this will get away with him." Because the Supreme Court ruled that the president "is not subject to civil or criminal liability for any official act undertaken by him during the performance of his constitutional duties."

Imperial remains, but so far the majority in the Senate belongs to the Republicans, this is extremely unlikely.