Is There Such A Thing As Being In Contempt Of A Supreme Court Decision?......

[global1]

I'm thinking about those that are saying that they won't abide by the SCOTUS decision on same sex marriage. Just wondering?

[RKP5637]

1. I would think so. This reminds me of the civil rights acts of the sixties. To me, these individuals

and supposed leaders are in defiance of SCOTUS.

[Peregrine]

2. Aint that simple

The courts do not have a means to enforce a decision, that falls on the executive branch, specifically Justice Dept. There must be a person(s) who are rejected to file a request for an injunction. The court will issue a Show Cause to the violating government entity. The court will then file an injunction against the entity. If a person violates that injunction, then the court will issue a contempt citation and request the Justice Dept. to deliver the individual to the court. Then rinse and repeat.

[global1]

3. If This Process Proceeds - What's The Worse That Could Happen To The Entity?.....nt

[TexasProgresive]

6. My guess is that this issue will have to make its ways through the courts

again. I don't think that the president having the 101st Airborne Division try to force this issue will work like it did with the brave Arkansas 9. Personally I believe if a civil servant elected or appointed who refuses service because they believe their faith disallows it should resign or be terminated.

[HockeyMom]

4. It must have happened after the Loving Decision too

I suppose you could look up what happened back in those days and how it was treated legally.

[jberryhill]

5. There are a couple of procedural paths

...and one would need specific facts to construct a hypothetical.

A couple denied a marriage license by a local official could directly file a civil action against the official under 42 U.S. Code § 1983. That puts monetary damages on the table, along with the usual contempt route in relation to any specific order issuing from that action.

[Volaris]

9. And if the president (any president) decides they don't want the justice department to

Do anything with it, then effectivley, you can tell the federal courts to go fuck themselves.
Same with Congressional subpoena power, the Executive Branch has to be the one to actually enforce it.
I think it might be a good idea to have a piece of legislation that assigns one federal Marshall each to the Congress and federal courts, and give that federal officer enforcement power absent presidential order..so that the next time a Karl Rove decides he just ain't gonna show up to answer Congress' questions, SOMEONE other than the President he works for has the power to perp-walk that fucker right down into the well of the Senate and sit him down in the damned chair.
But that's me.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. It's happened before. Remember Orval Faubus in Arkansas?

He defied Brown v. Board of Education and refused to allow the schools in Little Rock to be integrated. The president ended up sending in the National Guard to escort the black students to the high school.

[WinkyDink]

8. There's such a thing as breaking the law.