There is no jurisdiction in which blowing off a court is a legitimate reaction to perceived lawlessness. Or more accurately, there is no jurisdiction where doing so doesn’t legitimately bring down on you the full force of the state. To do anything else is to cede the rule of law.
Venezuela may overrule the courts later this year.
Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.
Revolution isn’t a legal strategy. (It’s a political one.)
There is political precedent of blowing off courts. But that is almost always a unilateral challenge to a system’s rule of law. That’s what Musk alleged. But complaining about sanctions when engaging in ersatz revolution is like complaining about arrest when engaging in civil disobedience—it’s the expected result. (See: Google in China.)
You’re referring to the Trial of King Charles I? That legally wasn’t a revolution, but an act of the sovereign Parliament. (It also didn’t happen in America or in 1776.)
It’s actually quite relevant, given Charles I refused to acknowledge the Commons’ legitimacy. He was executed. And the entire thing is deemed legal.
Sure. You still show up.
If the executive orders you not to show, you have a constitutional crisis and the rule of law has broken down. But that didn’t happen here. (Note: the court’s orders may be illegal. But not showing up and then complaining about sanctions is incoherent.)