The latest constitutional crisis, as perceived by some, revolves around the refusal to comply with every directive issued by a federal judge, regardless of jurisdiction.
This situation bears a striking resemblance to the previous crisis, dubbed "election denial," where Democrats were accused of similar actions. It seems as though history has a knack for repeating itself in the political arena.
The current standoff, as reported by the Western Journal, centers on whether President Donald Trump's administration has the right to hasten the deportation of alleged Tren de Aragrua and MS-13 gang members via El Salvador. The crux of the matter lies in whether the Trump administration is obligated to adhere to a judge's order to repatriate Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an illegal immigrant with a questionable asylum protection claim.
Adding to the complexity of the situation is the practice of filing cases regarding deportations in jurisdictions that lean liberal but have either a weak or non-existent connection to the case. This has led to accusations of a constitutional crisis by Democrats, who believe the Trump administration is disregarding a court order and openly declaring their intention to do so.
In a seemingly unrelated event in 2023, potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York advised then-President Joe Biden to disregard a judge's order barring the Food and Drug Administration from altering the availability of Mifepristone, commonly known as the abortion pill. Ocasio-Cortez's advice was simple: "Ignore this ruling."
Ocasio-Cortez elaborated on her stance during an interview with CNN on April 7, 2023. She expressed her belief that the judiciary, packed with partisan judges appointed by the right-wing Republican Party, was overreaching its authority. She suggested that the Biden administration should ignore such rulings, a sentiment she shared with Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon.
When questioned by CNN's Anderson Cooper about what ignoring a court order would entail, Ocasio-Cortez explained that enforcement of a ruling is at the discretion of the administration. She further clarified that she did not advocate for a government that could arbitrarily ignore federal court rulings. However, she expressed concern over a perceived power grab over the courts, which she believed could undermine laws and policies passed by Congress and the executive branch.
The Trump administration's approach to the Abrego Garcia case is less drastic than Ocasio-Cortez's suggestion. They are currently arguing the semantic difference between "effectuate" and "facilitate," seeking clarification on injunctions, and asserting that court orders violating the Constitution are invalid. This stance aligns with the founding fathers' clear intent that unconstitutional court orders are not binding.
In contrast, Ocasio-Cortez's less nuanced advice to Biden was to dismiss the court's input. This is not the first time such a suggestion has been made, nor the first time it has been acted upon. Biden himself has previously ignored court orders regarding the legality of his student loan forgiveness, eventually conceding defeat.
Ocasio-Cortez, who has presidential aspirations for 2028, seems to hold a dismissive view of the courts, unless a Republican is involved, in which case it becomes a constitutional threat.
This mirrors the double standard seen in the questioning of the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections, which was deemed acceptable, while questioning the 2020 election was labeled an insurrection. The only constant in this political landscape appears to be the shifting double standards depending on the issue at hand.
Login