What's the Big Deal About Defying Court Orders?

Democrats need to abandon elitist "constitutional crisis" language and explain why this matters in plain terms that mean something to voters

I want to scream pretty much every time I see a Democrat on TV this week. The only thing less likely to win over voters than vague cries of a “constitutional crisis!” is sputtering that we’re “on the cusp of a constitutional crisis!!”

This messaging is about as effective as calling Trump a “threat to democracy” was in helping Harris win the election. It’s true enough, but it just doesn’t resonate.

Yes, Trump is defying court orders and is threatening to ignore others. Yes, this counts as a constitutional crisis.

Plain Language, Please

But we need to talk about it in terms that mean something to people.

How about: defying court orders means burning Schoolhouse Rock to the ground. It means canceling everything we’ve taught our kids about the separation of powers. It means the United States no longer has a system of checks and balances.

These concepts (used to) mean what we all learned in grade school: Congress passes bills, the President signs them into law, and courts can say those laws are unconstitutional or the President acted beyond what Congress authorized.

Trump’s recent actions say (1) he doesn’t need Congress’s permission to do anything; he’s President so he can do whatever he wants; and (2) no court can say otherwise.

The President is “judge, jury, and executioner.”

Voters may not care, but we’ll at least be explaining things in a framework that allows them to decide whether they care.

Explaining that “we’ve gotten our toes right on the edge of a constitutional crisis” merely allows them to decide they were right that Democrats are the party of out-of-touch elites.

The Bad News: Voters Like Dictators

Gen Z whisperer John Della Volpe has an indispensable post explaining why all this is actually attractive to young voters:

• Gen Zers are highly engaged and want to solve issues; they see civic engagement as a duty. They may not vote in huge numbers, but they’re big on volunteering (especially locally) and direct action.

• The existing infrastructure for political and civic engagement can’t keep up with how they operate in the world. Everything takes too long to get started. They want action now and results immediately—just like they’re used to getting digital information and social interaction immediately.

• They don’t trust existing systems. Polls show Gen Z doesn’t believe in Congress, traditional media, the Supreme Court, or even social media companies.

Given this sense of civic duty and desire to fix things fast—but distrust of existing institutions—a new dictatorial force that bucks the system in the name of immediate results is compelling.

The bottom line, says JDV:

DOGE’s model isn’t just lean, agile, and impact-driven—it’s a direct rejection of traditional bureaucracy. Whether seen as a visionary or a disruptor, Musk has given young people (especially men) an alternative to slow-moving institutions, and they are taking it. He has built a system that feels urgent, responsive, and rewarding—everything government does not.

I recommend clicking over to read the recommendations for how Democrats can compete on these terms (within constitutional bounds) reclaim Gen Z engagement.

In short, we need to prove that government can have checks on power while still being dynamic, engaging, and able to deliver results without grinding to a halt.

We can start by being a political party that’s able to do those things.