Gephardt's Gaffe

Brett, Brett, Brett, let's face facts, the basics of Gephardt's statement does come across, on the face of it, as fairly ridiculous. While it is true that a President can make certain decisions on how policies, like abortion councilling and so forth are executed, such moves hardly constitute issuing "orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does".

And I would consider James' "defense" of Gephardt to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, although he can correct my interpretation if he likes.

Although I would agree with him that Presidents could attempt to simply not enforce an SC ruling (although on balance I am unlikely to support such a move). As I like to point out, there aren't any Supreme Court police to go out and enforce their rulings, they rely on the exceutive (federal and state) to do that.

UPDATE: James responds.