Can Harris ignore what the Florida Supreme Court rules?
Is there any precedent for the courts telling the executive how to do their jobs?
Courts tell executives how to do their jobs all the time. The courts are there to interpret the laws, after all. If the laws are confusing or conflicting, it is perfectly natural for the court to interpret the law and to direct an executive to act accordingly.
If the Florida Supreme Court reverses the lower court’s ruling and if they require Harris to accept the hand counts (both very big “ifs”), and ifHarris then refuses to do so, then a Constitutional crisis is at hand. (The Florida Constitution, that is.)
There are historical precedents for just such a crisis. IIRC, Andrew Jackson once said “The Supreme Court justices have made their law. Now let them enforce it.” (Or words to that effect.) I don’t recall the details, but I believe he disregarded a Supreme Court ruling regarding the removal of the Cherokee from Georgia.
Back to the present: If Harris disregarded the order, it would not surprise me to see two sets of electors send their ballots to Washington. Congress would then have to decide which set to recognize.
spoke- is right about the Andrew Jackson thing but I think things are a bit different today. Violating a court order is a sure way to get yourself in big trouble even if you’re the Secretary of State. The court could implement Contempt of Court proceedings against the Secretary and she could face fines and/or jail time over it.
This is true even if the court was wrong on its initial judgement. Say the Secretary ignores the order (whatever it is) and then assume that the US Supreme Court determines that the Florida Supreme Court was wrong and overturns their judgement. Secretary Harris is still guilty of contempt of court and the court is very likely to prosecute her for it. The circumstances may be mitigating to the point that she walks with a slap on the hand but the court will still do it to maintain their authority.
OK, so she maybe goes to jail for a week, but Bush still becomes the president right?
Rutherford B. Bush vs. Samualgore Tilden?? 
It could happen.
To get to the basis of this whole question, anybody who figures the courts are just there to try murderers, allow them to sue the idiots who sideswiped them, and resolve constitutional crises, would be surprised at the amount of adjudication of the meaning of law that goes on, and the number of times a court renders a decision binding on an executive.
Remember that the judge’s decision in a case becomes the law of the land, subject of course to change through adoption of a statute by the legislature or reversal by a higher court. Sometimes a state governor, wanting a given policy set in place permanently, will arrange for a suit to be conducted that will come out in a decision favoring his preferred policy. While he can adopt that policy without this, the next governor can overturn his policy and do just the reverse. But he is bound by case law.
“It is emphatically the duty of the judiciary to determine what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, U.S. Supreme Court, 1803. (Quote may be off a bit, it’s from memory).
An unspoken truth is that courts are actually much more dependent on public opinion than the other branches of government. Courts don’t have battalions or, besides baliffs, people to enforce their decisions. We accept judicial decisions and act on them because we recognize the (essentially) moral authority of the courts.
“Public opinion” in this context doesn’t mean popularity (although there is a bit of that). What is means is that, regardless of whether we like the decision or not, we percieve the decision to have been reached fairly and properly.
As for your OP, and given the above, not only would Ms. Harris go to jail essentially forever, she would become one of the most reviled people in the country (amongst most Republicans as well), because she will have violated extremely publicly what is probably the most fundamental precept in America – no one is above the law (besides O.J. :D). A side effect would be that no GOPer would be President for the next twenty years.
As for Bush becoming president under those circumstances, it would be interesting. The GOP-controlled Congress would have to decide whether to accept a bunch of illegally chosen Bush-supporting Electors from Florida. And make no mistake, until a court is overturned, its decision is the law.
Sua
Hell, Lincoln disobeyed a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court soon after he took office. I don’t recall Lincoln going to jail.
Which one was this? The only pres I recall defying the Sup. Ct. was Jackson, as earlier discussed.
Sua
Soon after Lincoln called forth the army to “preserve the union”, a Federal court (I THOUGHT it was the Supreme Court) ruled this act unconstitutional. Lincoln ignored the court.
Could you clarify this? I don’t think she would go to jail at all. Unless the court ordered her to reverse her certification (if possible) and she refused, in which case she’d go in for contempt of court until she complied.
More likely, the Court would merely rule that the certification was invalid.
Any court has the inherent power to punish disobedience of its orders, through a contempt proceeding.
While you are correct, IzzyR, in surmising that courts frequently use this power in a coercive manner (holding someone in jail until they comply with the order), they can also use the power in a punitive manner (imposing a jail term after the fact).
In the case at hand, a coercive use of contempt power might not be effective, since Harris could just wait it out in jail until after the Electoral College convenes. However, even if the court can’t successfully coerce Harris into obeying, they could certainly punish her afterwards by imposing a jail sentence.
I don’t think she would be imprisoned indefinitely, as SuaSponte (facetiously?) suggests, but she could be looking at a stiff prison term if she tries to pull a fast one.
Well, it seems likely the legistlature will meet to “fix” the courts ruling. I guess the court can’t put all of them in jail.
Possibly - but there’s this little “ex post facto laws” clause in the Constitution that could prevent them from changing the rules after the fact. This election has already been held. Any change in the rules could apply to the NEXT one, but not THIS one.
Disclaimer: IANAL (and make sure you don’t slip any extra spaces in that acronym, Buster.)
A legislative “fix” of this election would be this Democrat’s dream. I would love to see how the public would react to the spectacle of Jeb Bush calling a special session of the Florida legislature for the purpose of coronating his brother George.
Bush would be the last Republican President for the next 20 years…
I forgot to add:
Please don’t throw us in that briar patch, Brer Bush!
Isn’t this the same Supreme Court makeup that decided on the Dred Scott case? If that is so, then hurrah for Lincoln to ignore them.
Lincoln’s disagreements were with the Roger Taney Court of Dred Scott fame.
One of the decisions of the Court ignored by Lincoln was one that ordered the release of Confederate sympathizers who had been arrested during a suspension of habeas corpus. Lincoln basically said, “Too bad.”
Lincoln also took money out of the Treasury to pay for the initial costs of the Civil War without getting Congressional approval.
Lincoln played pretty fast and loose with the Constitution, but there were some extenuating circumstances.