there was a time when SCOTUS was the law of the land , what they ruled was final , but the world the liberal left has been allowed to create is they ignore any and all rulings they do not agree with and do what ever they want to
SCOTUS is as toothless as a 100 year old hooker , without consequence liberal cities and states have no incentive to comply with the court , revocation of all govenment funds for non compliance would be a good place to start
how many rulings have liberal cities and states ignored and imposed gun and magazine bans after SCOTUS ruled them uncostitutional
Just googled a little and it looks like ignoring SCOTUS isn't a new concept.
After the War of 1812, Jackson served as a federal commissioner to negotiate treaties with the Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks, Seminoles, and Cherokees—the so-called “Five Civilized Tribes” of the Southeast. Sometimes resorting to military threats and bribery, Jackson got most of the tribes to give up a total of 50-million acres of tribal land.
In 1828, Jackson was elected president. He declared that the only hope for the Southeastern tribes’ survival would be for them to give up all their land and move west of the Mississippi River. Jackson warned the tribes that if they failed to move, they would lose their independence and fall under state laws.
Jackson backed an Indian removal bill in Congress. Members of Congress like
Davy Crockett argued that Jackson violated the Constitution by refusing to enforce treaties that guaranteed Indian land rights. But Congress passed the removal law in the spring of 1830.
The Indian Removal Act offered tribes in the East lands in an area west of the Mississippi (soon to be called “Indian Territory”). The U.S. government promised to compensate the tribes for the property they would have to abandon.
Although removal was supposed to be voluntary, Jackson cut off payments to the tribes for previous land deals until they moved to the West. He also agreed with Georgia and other Southern states that their laws controlled tribal land. For example, Georgia had passed legislation that abolished the Cherokee government.
Jackson’s ideological conviction about the flexible nature of the law and Constitution in the face of dangers confronting the still-fledgling nation can be seen in many subsequent Jacksonian battles. When President Jackson confronted the Bank of the United States in 1832, he did so with the belief that it was a corrupt fiscal monster threatening the nation’s economic security. He not only vetoed the Bank’s recharter, which was within his right as chief executive, but went a step further by removing federal deposits even after Congress had deemed them safe. Jackson transferred one secretary of the treasury and fired another in order to secure the deposit removals. His actions were questionable, if not completely illegal, and the Senate censured him by making a notation in their journal. They didn’t attempt impeachment for lack of support.
Other legal conflicts surfaced. Jackson allegedly defied the Supreme Court over
Worcester v. Georgia (1832), announcing, “John Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it.” The case revolved around Georgia’s attempt to apply state laws to Cherokee lands. The Court had ruled against Georgia’s authority to do so and Jackson, dedicated to Indian removal, allegedly challenged Marshall. Although there is little evidence to support the above quotation, it certainly sounds like Jackson. Nonetheless, the case required nothing of Jackson and was ultimately settled out of court. The fact remained, however, that in this case and in
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), when it was ruled that the Bank of the United States was in fact constitutional, Jackson challenged the Court’s authority as the final arbiter. As president, Jackson believed that his authority to deem what was constitutional equaled the Supreme Court’s.
