Dinner Table Diplomacy: Congress Must Ground the Executive Before This Constitutional Food Fight Turns Ugly

Imagine the American system of government as a family dinner table. The Judiciary, our Supreme Court and federal judges, is perhaps the somewhat studious, often rule-citing elder sibling – occasionally a bit of a know-it-all, but tasked with interpreting the family rules (the Constitution and our laws). The Executive branch, under President Felonious Punk, increasingly resembles an impetuous younger sibling, prone to tantrums, selectively deaf to instructions, and quick to lash out when not getting its way. And Congress? Congress is supposed to be the Parent, the ultimate authority responsible for ensuring everyone behaves, respects the rules, and that the dinner doesn’t devolve into a chaotic food fight.

This past weekend, the “younger sibling” didn’t just throw food; it took a deliberate, menacing poke directly at the “elder sibling’s” eye, and the Parent, Congress, is now under an intense spotlight to intervene before the entire household is upended.

The latest affront began when President Punk, on Saturday, May 17th, took to Truth Social to amplify and endorse the inflammatory claims of attorney Mike Davis, a close ally. Davis, founder of the conservative Article III Project, had attacked a Supreme Court decision as an “illegal injunction” against the President, accusing the nation’s highest court of treading a “perilous path.” The Court’s “crime”? Temporarily blocking the Punk administration on Friday from deporting Venezuelan nationals, accused of being gang members, under the archaic Alien Enemies Act without due process of law, while the legality of that action is further litigated. The justices, in their order, specifically flagged these due process concerns – a cornerstone of American justice.

Davis’s rhetoric, which the President chose to broadcast, escalated dangerously. “The Supreme Court still has an illegal injunction on the President of the United States, preventing him from commanding military operations to expel these foreign terrorists,” Davis fumed, before adding a suggestion dripping with intimidation: “The President should house these terrorists near the Chevy Chase Country Club, with daytime release.” The country club in question is located in Maryland, near the homes of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The implication was as unsubtle as it was chilling.

President Punk didn’t just passively share these sentiments. He reportedly “raged” at the justices for their ruling, labeling it “bad” and “dangerous.” He then amplified another of Davis’s posts that insinuated the Court was treating him unfairly, with Punk adding his own demand: “The Supreme Court must come to the RESCUE OF AMERICA.” The President of the United States, in essence, endorsed the narrative that the Supreme Court was acting illegally by upholding due process and called for it to “rescue” America by presumably siding with his administration, irrespective of the legal merits.

This is not an isolated tantrum. It’s part of an alarming and accelerating trend where President Punk and his allies attack the very legitimacy of the judicial branch whenever it poses a check on executive power. He has repeatedly lashed out at federal judges who rule against his policies, branding them “rogue” or “activists.” Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson have both previously issued public warnings about the profound harm such attacks inflict on the independence of the judiciary, a vital pillar of our democracy.

The administration has also faced accusations of outright defying court orders, most notably in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom the Supreme Court directed the administration to facilitate returning to the U.S. after an erroneous deportation to El Salvador – an order that, according to reports, has been largely ignored. This pattern of defiance is so concerning that even Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan reportedly raised questions during oral arguments in the birthright citizenship case just last week about the implications of a President refusing to follow court orders.

The current situation – where the Executive branch openly accuses the Judicial branch of “illegal” actions for performing its constitutional duty and amplifies thinly veiled threats against justices – is a “bridge too far.” This is precisely the moment where the “Parent” in our analogy, the United States Congress, must step in with authority and conviction.

For too long, many in Congress, particularly those within the President’s own party, have appeared hesitant, if not outright unwilling, to meaningfully check this administration’s escalating disregard for established norms and the rule of law. The desire to “court favor with the President,” to avoid his wrath, or to achieve partisan policy goals seems to have often overridden their constitutional obligations. But this latest attack on the Supreme Court cannot be met with the usual timid statements or averted gazes.

Congress has a profound responsibility here. This isn’t about choosing sides in a policy dispute; it’s about defending the integrity of the separation of powers and the sanctity of an independent judiciary. It is up to Congress, through its oversight powers, its control of the purse, its public platform, and its collective institutional weight, to make it unequivocally clear that such attacks on the judiciary are unacceptable and will have consequences. They must ensure that the Executive branch understands it is not above the law, nor is it entitled to bully or intimidate a co-equal branch of government.

What is needed are not just statements, but actions. Public hearings should be convened to investigate these attacks on judicial independence and the administration’s pattern of defying court orders. Clear legislative guardrails might be needed to reinforce protections for the judiciary and ensure compliance with its rulings. Most importantly, a strong, bipartisan chorus from congressional leaders must condemn this behavior and reaffirm their commitment to a “government of laws, not of men.”

If the “Parent” at the dinner table allows one child to relentlessly poke the other in the eye without consequence, the entire family structure begins to break down. The American people, and indeed the world, are watching to see if Congress has the courage to fulfill its constitutional duty and restore some semblance of order and respect for the rule of law before this constitutional food fight leads to something far worse, leaving the dinner table – and our democracy – in ruins. This is indeed a critical moment, and our elected representatives can no longer afford to look away.