Supreme Court at severe disadvantage in dealing with Trump's 'shocking' behavior: expert

Atlantic writer Thomas Schmidt predicts an imminent stand-off between the courts and President Donald Trump, but only Trump has literal guns.

Judges say the president is willing to act in ways that “should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans ... hold dear,” by disregarding court orders. Schmidt says the administration is clearly content to continue “along a path of stubborn resistance rather than accommodation.

But should courts be put in a position to act on their mounting rulings against administration misbehavior, what will be their army? The president commands the executive branch and the military, and while courts can direct the U.S. Marshals Service to carry out orders that could lead to imprisoned of "culpable officials.” But even though marshals have a statutory duty to follow court orders, the U.S. Marshals Service is part of the Department of Justice, which is under the supervision of Attorney General Pam Bondi.

READ MORE: Wall Street seems to have decided that Trump is mentally unstable

Bondi, meanwhile, has demanded DOJ employees’ devote complete fealty to Trump, and she's even fired DOJ employees who have crossed the administration by fairly doing their jobs.

Beyond the willingness of U.S. marshals to stand with courts, federal judges’ “effectiveness depends on democratic cultural norms,” which are in turn dependent upon the American people.

“[P]ublic opinion is the bedrock on which rests the norm of official compliance with federal court judgments,” writes Schmidt, but “public opinion is not a one-way street: The courts can influence and inform public opinion not only through their orders but also through hearings and discovery that make plain the government’s misconduct.

Courts must be clearer in their directives because the Trump administration “is willing to twist any arguable ambiguity in a court order to its advantage,” including narrowing the interpretation of the word “facilitate” to keep improperly deported legal residents to international prisons. The courts, therefore, must speak in small, clear words that are difficult to twist, like the one weekend SCOTUS order “flatly” prohibiting the Trump administration circumventing local laws by moving victims to a different judicial district and then deporting them.

READ MORE: 'I believed what Trump said —but not any more!' Behind the voters dumping Donald

Finally, Schmidt says other political branches, including Congress, will have to step up, saying that open defiance of a Supreme Court order should be grounds for impeachment.

Read the full Atlantic story by clicking here.