On condition that the assertion got here simply two days after he had been handed a short lived setback by the Supreme Courtroom in one of many three pending border-related lawsuits between Texas and the federal authorities, it was seen by many on the left (and within the media) as outright defiance of the justices’ ruling, if not a flashpoint for a burgeoning constitutional disaster. In the meantime, right-wing media — and an alarming variety of Republican elected officers — egged Mr. Abbott on, encouraging him to do precisely what his critics claimed he was already doing, that’s, to disregard the Supreme Courtroom within the identify of defending Texas’ sovereignty.
The response from the left was mistaken. All that the Supreme Courtroom did final week was to wipe away, with no clarification, a lower-court injunction that was successfully barring federal officers from eradicating the razor wire that Texas had positioned alongside the border. Nothing within the ruling stopped Texas from doing something, so there was no method through which Mr. Abbott might “defy” the courtroom, even when he needed to. His public and in-court arguments could also be — and are — incorrect, but it surely’s not a constitutional disaster simply because he’s making them. And though some outstanding Democrats have urged President Biden to federalize the Texas Nationwide Guard in response, such a transfer could be legally doubtful by itself — and would serve solely to escalate the political battle.
The response from the best was far worse. From members of Congress to right-wing commentators, the concept that Mr. Abbott ought to merely ignore the Supreme Courtroom shortly drew monumental traction. For everybody urging Mr. Abbott on, this made painfully clear that the constitutional ideas simply don’t matter; all that issues is successful. If a problem is fashionable — or divisive — sufficient, then utilizing it to attain political factors takes priority over all different concerns, together with an precise coverage repair on Capitol Hill, respect for the opposite branches of presidency, or constancy to the fundamental construction of our constitutional system, to say nothing of the damaging authorized and political precedents it could set to upend all of these issues.
After which there’s the courtroom itself — which, with full information of what’s occurring on the bottom, didn’t precisely assist issues by issuing an unexplained ruling that divided the justices 5-4. Somewhat than offering steerage which may have helped to defuse a few of the authorized disputes and political rigidity, or at the very least talking with one voice, the justices launched additional confusion.
All of this augurs poorly for a actual constitutional disaster — the place, armed with public help, some individual or establishment in our system overtly defies the constitutional checks and balances imposed by one other. The pushback, in such a case, goes to require nuance and statesmanship — nuance to clarify to the general public precisely what the disaster is (and isn’t) and the way it was provoked; statesmanship to supply at the very least some response from these of the identical political ilk for why the long-term prices of such subversion of the Structure outweighs the short-term advantages. If and when disputes arising from that disaster attain the Supreme Courtroom, the justices must do greater than bury their heads within the sand — by each explaining precisely what the Structure does and doesn’t require and appearing in ways in which don’t merely reaffirm the general public’s lack of religion within the establishment.
