No one on the right takes anything AOC says seriously, and for good reason. She was a back bencher when the Democrats ran the House, and now that she’s in the minority, she’s usually only good for the low-hanging fruit of hot takes that are fun for people like me to clip and use as show prep. She might become something more of a threat if she follows through on a speculative future campaign to take on Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. But until then, she’s become the poster girl for everything the right warns about in the Democratic Party. That said, it’s still prudent not to overlook her too much, because she’s usually very honest about her views, and will give you a clean window with which to peer into the soul and desire of the progressives.

On CNN’s Sunday show, State of the Union with Dana Bash hosting, the topic of the Friday district court ruling in Texas overruling the FDA’s approval of the abortion drug, Mifepristone. In case you missed it while you were celebrating more important things like the anniversary of the risen Christ, Karen had a pretty good primer of what is at stake here.

And before we get to the clip of AOC and Dana Bash, a couple of points to make. First, Alliance Defending Freedom, the plaintiff in the case in Texas, is and has been for decades a sponsor of the radio show, and of Salem Radio Network. We have several good friends within ADF, and view their work as extremely crucial in the current social and legal climate we face. Second, this case is not at all guaranteed to make it to the Supreme Court. While there are competing rulings at a district court level, one from Texas and one from Washington State, one or both will have to be reviewed at the appellate court level. At least the one in Texas will. The Supreme Court is only really likely to take the case if there are two diametrically opposing views of the same issue, the authority of the FDA to approve the use of Mifepristone, coming out of two appellate courts. If that happens, then the Supremes almost certainly will weigh in. If, however, the 5th Circuit overrules the Texas district judge with no further action in Washington State, it’s more of a longshot to get the Court to grant cert.

Now for the cut. Dana Bash brings up the hypothetical of the case going to the Supreme Court, and taking the bait is AOC, who rails at what she believes is the latest crisis facing the republic.

There’s so much on which to comment in this cut, so let’s work our way through it. First off, AOC presumably put her hand on something important and swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, which begins by defining the structure of three co-equal branches of government so that one branch would not be all-powerful and all-controlling. The FDA is one agency within one department of the executive’s cabinet. I’ve read the document pretty thoroughly several times in my nearly-three score years, and nowhere in there do I read that an executive branch agency is immune to or beyond the reach of Congressional oversight or judicial review. It’s not the Constitution very intentionally, as the founders did not want a king. They didn’t want government without representation. They didn’t want dictates and executive fiats without Congress and/or a court system to be able to keep a federal government from becoming too powerful. That’s just one of the reasons their ancestors left England in the first place, was to escape the heavy hand of a tyrannical ruler. What AOC is complaining about is her perception of a crisis being judicial overreach, which most normal people view simply as a check and balance against an ever-growing regulatory state not operating under any federal statute or law.

AOC doesn’t respond in a logical, measured approach in her answer to Bash that she doesn’t do hypotheticals. Instead, she opines what a crisis it would be over a circumstance that is a long way off from happening, if it ever does. And even if the Court were to weigh in and hear the case, and that’s if there are competing Circuit Court decisions and one does come down on the side of the Texas district judge ruling, that is not a de facto ban on abortion nationwide, as AOC fears. It would mean that the FDA finally got caught playing politics while ignoring science, setting aside traditional safeguards before approving this specific drug for public use, and playing down the negative effects the drug has had on women and girls who’ve used it. So why would the FDA shortstop all of its normal protocols and make Mifepristone so available you can get it via the mail system? It wanted a workaround to surgical abortive procedures, which have become less desirable over the years once people realize what actually takes place to the baby inside during these procedures.

The Congresswoman continues on with her rant, warning we’re in extremely dangerous territory if we don’t allow for the taking of life in utero. She thinks there’s going to be some crisis if the judiciary allows that to happen. If only she belonged to a body in one of the three branches of government charged with drafting and writing laws that would sanction the use of such a drug were it to be deemed safe. In fact, if memory serves, she was part of a legislative body that controlled the House, the Senate, and had a signer of the bill in the White House as recently as last year. And yet, such a bill did not pass. Pity. Seems like a missed opportunity for a lawmaker.

Anytime a Congressional representative urges the Court on TV to take a position on a case not before them, and in the same sentence calls them lawless, it’s hard not to laugh. Every attorney in front of the Nine arguing for or against a case on behalf of their clients, whether they agree with the justices or not, generally does not begin their oral argument by calling them lawless. And on what grounds are they being lawless, you ask? Why, the unforgivable sin of remanding an issue specifically not bound to the judiciary back to the states for individual legislative and/or direct electoral action. In other words, the Court is now apparently lawless for reversing the lawless action it took in 1973 and restoring Constitutional order back to where it always should have been.

The Court already has an ‘extraordinary conflict of interest’? What conflict of interest is that? They ruled in Dobbs according to the clear intent of the separation of powers, and if this new issue were to come before them, I have no idea how they would rule. Personally, I would love for them to follow through with their recent Constitutional jurisprudence of restoring balance to the three co-equal branches. The legislative branch decades ago ceded way too much of its authority to executive branch agencies to write rules and implement backdoor legislation through the regulatory process. The regulatory state is a great part of what ails this country, and it would be spectacular if the Court, while it has this current lineup, started whacking away at that regulatory state and told Congress to do its job if it wants something approved or banned.

“I hope we don’t get to that point,” AOC ominously warns. That sounds like a threat to me. I wonder if the IRS will visit her house. I’m curious if the FBI will open up an investigation. I’d be interested to see if she’ll face any Ethics committee recriminations for this brazen incitement.

Finally, she absurdly falls back on the argument of how we need to revisit checks and balances, because checks and balances ultimately lead to judicial overreach. Well, I have a flash for you, Comrade Ocasio-Cortez. I like my checks and balances just fine. They’re messy. They slow things way down. People in power don’t always get what they want. And you know who complains the most about that form of government? Dictators and their useful idiots in sham politburos. Oh, and the populace in those dictatorships, they don’t like it when there’s no checks and balances, either. In fact, history is replete with examples where unchecked state power never works out too good in the long run.

I’m all for continuing to frustrate the hell out of the would-be Marxists in our government, and shine a light for all to see on what kind of state rule Utopia progressives want to usher in under the guise of freedom. No thanks.