Remember when it wasn't OK to criticize Supreme Court rulings (when Trump did it)?

Possibly the dumbest reaction to the Supreme Court's ruling in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency came from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, although Justice Kagan, who has at least 50 I.Q. points on AOC, gave her some competition.

Just because her side didn't get its way, she wants to destroy the Supreme Court, and possibly the entire Judicial Branch.

"Reform" in this context means packing the Court by expanding its membership with new appointees who are radical leftists.  That would be reversed by the next Republican president and Senate combination, which would, in turn, lead to an endless cycle of court expansion until its membership started to rival that of Congress.  The Court would be destroyed — which would amount to "doing away" with it, only without the necessary constitutional amendment necessary to formally abolish the Court.

For a bit of nostalgia (hat tip: Mike Nadler), consider the reactions to the bien pensants when President Trump criticized court rulings.


Federal judge assails Trump's attacks on judiciary: He's feeding a 'destructive narrative'

A federal judge on Wednesday assailed President Donald Trump for his repeated attacks on various legal decisions and judges, stating the President's bombastic criticism is feeding into a "destructive narrative."

US District Court Judge Paul Friedman said Trump's personal attacks on judges are helping "undermine faith in the rule of law itself."

"This obviously is a trend we're seeing throughout public life, but, I would suggest, the stakes in attacking the judiciary have graver implications," Friedman said in remarks as part of a lecture series at a federal courthouse in Washington. "And regrettably, the current President of the United States is feeding right into this destructive narrative."

From the American Bar Association's journal:

Trump's attacks on courts undermine judicial independence

President Trump's attacks upon judges and judicial decisions undermines the legitimacy of the courts. This diminishes the purpose of having not only a system of checks and balances, but of having a neutral court that can operate independently. Derogatory tweets and criticisms from the executive branch must not be allowed to intimidate the judiciary. For centuries, Americans have relied on fair courts to prevent government overreach and to maintain the constitutional rights of its citizens, regardless of the political motivations of the other two government branches. Allowing the federal courts to serve as an impartial and independent body free of executive interference is crucial to preserving the ideals of the United States of America.

The head of state's disrespect and contempt for one of the bedrock principles of democracy demonstrates why an independent judicial branch is essential. The executive branch cannot usurp the judicial branch, and the executive branch should not attempt to abrogate this core constitutional structure. Our system of checks and balances has proved to be the bedrock of our democracy. The Constitution safeguards judicial independence; however, separation of powers ensures that each branch must accord the others a certain level of deference. As the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Nixon, no person, not even the president of the United States, is above the law.

Photo credit: Joe Ravi, CC BY-SA 3.0 license.

If you experience technical problems, please write to