matthewcline 0 #126 June 26, 2012 QuoteQuoteI'm no lawyer (but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night). Isn't there a motion that asks an entity to explain why they are not enforcing the law? It's a writ of mandamus. Basically, a mandatory injunction requiring an official to act. Can failure to do so, lead to a contempt charge? Has it ever in any other situation? MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #127 June 26, 2012 The famed case Marbury v. Madison was a case about mandamus. The SCOTUS decided that it couldn't issue the writ because it was only a court of appellate jurisdiction. The judicial review part that made the case so important was actually dicta - it had nothing to do with the merits of THAT case. Mandamus is also seen a lot in government activities, such as environmental reports, etc., where it is alleged that they did not do the job properly. Courts are routinely asked to force agencies to go run the reports again using the proper standards. Contempt is interesting here. In theory, yes, an executive branch member can be in contempt of court for disobeying mandamus and I’m sure that it happens with lower-level bureaucrats. But it creates an interesting situation with the Chief Executive – The President is the head of the executive branch. Who carries out the orders of the Court? Yep - the executive branch. Thus, the President may be subject to a writ of mandamus telling her to do her job. It's also her job to enforce the writ. She doesn't act in accordance with the writ it’s an act of contempt. The petitioner would have to set an Order to Show Cause re: Contempt. Assume the President doesn't respond and she is held in contempt and the Court signs a bench warrant. The POTUS can then refuses to serve or execute the warrant on herself., so the writ or warrant would also be meaningless. Just to be on the safe side, the President then pardons herself. Meaning also that the warrant is evaporated (though writ likely is still valid) See how checks and balances create interesting situations? Such a battle has never been waged - a President would be on the losing end of it because courts have lifetime tenure. There's no benefit to making a political scrap with the federal court because federal judges don’t care about public outcry and will be around when the term ends. AND – just check out the last time a President decided to say some harsh words about the federal courts. (Again, I expect much more accuracy from a Constitutional scholar). The President will scrap with Congress, though. There’s plenty of political hay to make there. Clinton was a MASTER of it. He knew when to fight and when not to fight. But he sure as hell didn’t take on the Supreme Court. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
