> How do courts declare certain executive orders unconstitutional, and yet the perpetrators, who took an oath to uphold and defend said rights and values, face no consequences?
Isn't this like saying developers should suffer consequences if they allow bugs to get into their code? Because we are perpetrators of flawed code, like law makers are perpetrators of flawed laws?
> Regardless of one's opinion of said rights, how do courts blatantly ignore rulings and orders from higher courts with no repercussions?
Because to do otherwise is to abandon civil process (where people get to argue about laws, and they have the right to be wrong without further consequence than being wrong) and enters into what would effectively devolve into mob rule.
More like saying engineers - who, like elected officials, take an oath - ought to suffer consequences if say a bridge, whose plans they signed, collapses.
Not agreeing or disagreeing. Merely adjusting the analogy
> Don’t developers face consequences over bugs in their code?
If face significant consequences, there would be no developers left.
> Too many and you might get shown the door.
You are much more likely to get shown the door for being hard to work with, being crass, not showing up to work, not following process (that doesn't eliminate bugs but mitigates consequences), etc...
because its not always accidental. look at abortion laws before there was reason to challenge them, or many blue state gun laws. they're giant "fuck you"s to getting told to stop doing smth stupid. like NY gets its gun law overturned so its like "fuck you we're gonna make super invasive requirements for testing (which you cant even do in state) and turning over social media handles (hella chilling effect)." or almost all the lockdown orders that got overturned, but after 1-2 years of being in effect.
really grinds my gears cuz they KNOW these laws will get killed in court but it will take 3-4 years so in the mean time stfu and deal with it.
That's actually an old and effective political strategy. Perhaps distasteful, but part of the game in the same sense that icing the kicker in football is part of the game (as consequence of the rules of time-outs).
I've even seen it used to good effect to strong-arm otherwise unreachable organizations when they choose to be anti-social. During the housing crash, one of the major non-profit universities a city panicked about its investments going shaky and abruptly decided to stop paying into some multi-decades-long standing donations that back-stopped some city services. The non-profit was paying into that donation pool because state law that had made sense in the 1900s and a lot less sense in 2000 made those non-profits non-taxable (but they had eaten up a significant percent of available real estate in the city center, none of which could generate tax revenue to pay for city services).
The city responded by preparing an ordnance that would tax out-of-town students directly.
The uni responded that this would be obviously illegal on its face as per state law.
The city responded that they believed the uni was presenting a reasonable legal theory that they were happy to debate back-and-forth in county, circuit, state, and appeals court for the next five years.
The university returned to the negotiating table and hammered out a new plan to pay a percentage of their former amount into the donation pool, preventing what would have otherwise been a heavy disruption in city services at a time when everyone was hurting from the housing crash.
Messy, but this kind of creation of leverage is what makes political systems operate at all at multiple scales of governance.
Isn't this like saying developers should suffer consequences if they allow bugs to get into their code? Because we are perpetrators of flawed code, like law makers are perpetrators of flawed laws?
> Regardless of one's opinion of said rights, how do courts blatantly ignore rulings and orders from higher courts with no repercussions?
Because to do otherwise is to abandon civil process (where people get to argue about laws, and they have the right to be wrong without further consequence than being wrong) and enters into what would effectively devolve into mob rule.