Ignore the Supreme Court

Question: If the Supreme Court ordered the governor of Texas to permit trans surgeries performed by drug mules strung out on fentanyl, for the victims to then be human trafficked into the transsexual porn market, should the Texas governor obey that order?

Now that I have your attention, let me first check all the celebratory boxes before I get to my main point. I am thrilled with Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s line in the sand to the U.S. Supreme Court and all tyrannical feds, a letter that some are comparing to the Declaration of Independence.

I am relieved that early reports about Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton missing the mark on the legal defense of the right of a state to defend its borders were incorrect.

I am amazed that 25 Republican governors across the nation as well as GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump have rallied so quickly to come to the aid of Texas, its governor, and its people (and therefore the American people because it's not just about Texas’ border).

And finally, don’t even get me started on Ted Cruz’s Civil War muttonchops. Sublime.

But (and you probably saw this coming) ...

We are not a nation of laws, and we never have been. We are a nation of political will, and we always will be.

With all of that good news, there are still some Conservative Inc. blue checks who simply cannot be bothered to smell the free air. They immediately threw up the caution flag after the Supreme Court rendered its 5-4 decision against Texas, contending that no order was actually given for Texas to follow.

This brings me back to the question I posed at the outset, because as important and even existential as this border fight is, what we are fighting for right now goes well beyond a single issue.

In fact, the fight is about all the issues we hold dear.

Because the truth is, the Supreme Court has no explicit constitutional authority to issue any orders at all. Or maybe I misread Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78 saying the judicial branch has “neither force nor will.” My goodness, please tell me we really don’t have people on our side rushing to defend our enemy’s stupid premise of judicial supremacy, instead of joining what could be the most consequential constitutional moment of our lives!

For whether or not Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is running for president, what is currently on the table for civic debate is nothing short of the governance he made enormously popular in the Sunshine State beginning in 2020 while so many others floundered.

That’s when he reintroduced to a starving and desperate nation a foundational American principle: the doctrine of the lesser magistrate (or "interposition"). It is why we have branches of government. It is why we have a 10th Amendment that says whatever power has not been explicitly bestowed upon the federal government goes to the states. It is why constitutional amendments must get approval from a supermajority of the states. It’s why we even have juries "of our peers."

All of that flies in the face of the idea that anything an unelected judge or federal bureaucrat wants to order must be enforced by a captive nation, which then has no choice but to submit.

Nonsense!

It is officially “don’t mess with Texas” time! But I’ve been fooled so many times before by those who claim the banner of the constitutional republic (if we can keep it) yet turn out to be nothing more than cheap cucks that I’m having a hard time believing we have what it takes for this vital moment.

Look around, though, people. Has the 101st Airborne unleashed hell by parachuting into Austin to charge Greg Abbott with insurrection? Are the Navy SEALs swimming the Rio Grande as we speak upon orders issued by the U.S. Supreme Court?

Nope.

Once again, Hamilton in Federalist 78is instructive: “It may truly be said the courts have neither force nor will, but merely judgment and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm for the efficacy of their judgments.”

Efficacy is a key word here. Because it clearly denotes the power of the executive to go full Ron Burgundy and tell the court to its face: “I don’t believe you.”

The Supreme Court’s legal ruling is total anti-constitutional garbage. Thus, Abbott isn’t enforcing it. If the justices have a problem with that, we have these things called elections (for now), and they can take it up with the ultimate lesser magistrate — “We, the people” — at a later date.

If the people wanted us to enforce the court’s trash, they can take us out like the trash through elections. But in this country, the people formed the Constitution, and the people are supposed to have the final word on its meaning, not unelected judges and bureaucrats.

America’s founders didn’t pledge their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" to go from fighting red coats to black robes. The signers of the Declaration of Independence who would later see their plantations lit on fire or covered in blood from battle in protest of "no taxation without representation" never intended for the result of that to be “whatever spews forth from the bowels of totally depraved elites who aren't directly accountable to the people is now irrevocable law.”

So if it is starting to sound to you like the courts don’t have nearly the power you thought they had, we might have a chance.

We’re not a nation of laws, and we never have been. We are a nation of political will, and we always will be.

It’s time for 30 million Texans to tell five Supreme Court justices to get bent and remind all of us about the most important lesson of all: We could have been doing this the entire time on any and every issue that matters.