As you may have heard, not kowtowing to every order issued by a federal judge no matter what his jurisdiction is the new constitutional crisis.
And just like the old crisis — “election denial” — it turns out the Democrats have done the exact same thing. It’s almost like this happens every time, just like magic!
As you may have heard, the latest showdown involves whether or not President Donald Trump’s administration can expedite the deportation of alleged Tren de Aragrua and MS-13 gang members via El Salvador.
Specifically, much of this has rested upon whether the Trump administration is required under a judge’s order to bring back Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an illegal immigrant with a specious asylum protection claim.
There’s also the matter of filing cases regarding the deportations in jurisdictions that are conveniently liberal but have either a tenuous connection or no connection at all to the case. (See: Boasberg, U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Columbia James.)
Naturally, this is creating a constitutional crisis in the minds of Democrats, since the Trump administration is — in their eyes — ignoring a court order and openly saying they’ll do so.
In completely unrelated news, in 2023, potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York said that then-President Joe Biden should pay no heed to a judge prohibiting the Food and Drug Administration from “altering the status quo and rights as it relates to the availability of Mifepristone,” otherwise known as the abortion pill.
AOC’s advice? “Ignore this ruling.”
“Well, you know, I think rulings like this, and I think we’ve seen from the FDA and also from activity in Congress that some of these rulings, I think we’ve been preparing and anticipating for there being these egregious overreaches by members of the judiciary appointed by a right-wing Republican Party, whose goal for a very long time was to just pack these courts with partisan judges often under qualified or completely unqualified for the for their role,” AOC told CNN on April 7, 2023.
Should Trump simply ignore these obviously illegal rulings?
“So there has been thought, I believe, given to this,” she added. “Sen. Ron Wyden [of Oregon] has already issued statements, for example, advising what we should do in situations like this — which I concur — which is that I believe that the Biden administration should ignore this ruling.”
“So what you’re saying, the Biden administration should ignore this court?” CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked. “What does that look like? What does that actually mean?”
“You know, I think the interesting thing when it comes to a ruling is that it relies on enforcement. And it is up to the Biden administration to enforce, to choose whether or not to enforce such a ruling,” she said.
Oh! That’s what it means! Enjoy CECOT, Mr. Abrego Garcia. AOC said you’re staying right there.
Cooper went on to ask whether “we want to live in a world where the government can decide to ignore a federal court ruling.” Here, Ocasio-Cortez was more circumspect, because her underpowered cerebral CPU occasionally catches up with the source code her mouth outputs.
“Well, no, of course. I mean, I do think that this — that it raises these important questions, and do think that when we look at, and there are serious questions that the FDA and the Biden administration is going to have to figure out and how exactly we map this out,” she said.
“But, on the other hand, what we are also seeing is a power grab over our courts in which the laws passed by Congress, and the rules and policies passed by the executive branch now are going to require unanimous consent from 650 District Court Judges, many of which are appointed with even, you know, the American Bar Association, saying that they are completely unfit for the role,” she added.
Remember @AOC in 2023? This is what she said about judicial rulings after a Texas judge moved to suspend approval of the abortion pill:
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez:
“I think, we’ve been preparing and anticipating for there being these egregious overreaches by members of the judiciary… pic.twitter.com/OnfSD8DPYV
— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) April 27, 2025
Oh — so one judge shouldn’t be able to hold up the process entirely, especially if you get ABA cronies to consider them too conservative? Hot diggity. I think the Trump administration would cosign that.
By the way, the Trump administration isn’t even doing anything this bad; in the Abrego Garcia case, for example, they’re currently trying to make a case that there’s a significant difference between “effectuate” and “facilitate,” and in other cases they’re looking for clarification on what the injunctions entail. Beyond that, they’re also looking to the fact that the founding fathers were exceptionally clear that court orders that violate the Constitution are invalid — which is what Trump’s team is also banking on.
AOC’s suggestion, significantly less nuanced, was that Biden say: “Nah, but thanks for the input, Corn Pop. We’ll take it from here, you lying dog-faced pony soldiers.” She wasn’t even playing pretend.
Nor did Biden do so, repeatedly ignoring court orders on the legality of his student loan forgiveness until even he had to admit defeat on that one. In other words, this wasn’t even the first time it had been suggested, much less done. With Uncle Joe, you could simply say the man’s neurons were shot and the only thing going on in between his ears was a constant loop of “Yakety Sax” played in three-quarter time.
AOC, meanwhile, clearly wants to be president in 2028. Her opinion on the courts? Ignore ’em. Unless it’s a Republican, then it’s a constitutional threat. Just like questioning the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections were kosher, but 2020 was an insurrection. The only thing that changes is the issue upon which they hold a double standard.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
