In a recent statement that has sparked significant controversy, California Governor Gavin Newsom referred to the deportation case of Abrego Garca as a mere "distraction." This characterization raises serious concerns about his grasp on moral integrity and constitutional principles, especially given the gravity of the situation at hand.

To understand the seriousness of this matter, it's essential to outline what is at stake. The Supreme Court of the United States has issued a unanimous 9-0 ruling that mandates the government take action to facilitate the return of Abrego Garca to the United States. A unanimous ruling from the Supreme Court, especially in today's politically polarized environment, signifies a monumental consensus on a critical legal issue. This is not merely a partisan issue; it goes to the very heart of our constitutional framework. The President of the United States, who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and faithfully execute the laws, is now in open defiance of the highest judicial authority in the country.

The implications of allowing a President to disregard a unanimous Supreme Court order without facing any consequences are daunting. If such a scenario becomes commonplace, the foundational principles of checks and balances, the separation of powers, and the rule of lawpillars of American democracywould be effectively dismantled. This is not an exaggeration; it is the very constitutional crisis that many warned about, unfolding right before our eyes.

Critics of Governor Newsom, often labeled as "pragmatists," suggest that our focus should be on immediate issues like economic concernswhat they refer to as kitchen table issues. This perspective reveals a profound misunderstanding of the stakes involved. It erroneously presents a dichotomy between caring about economic well-being and upholding constitutional integrity, as if American citizens cannot be concerned about their financial futures while simultaneously advocating for a functional and fair constitutional republic.

Furthermore, one must consider the human element of this situation. Governor Newsom might benefit from a visit with Abrego Garca's childrentwo of whom are autistic and one who suffers from seizures. How could he explain to them that their fathers wrongful imprisonment and mistreatment in El Salvador is merely a "distraction" in the grand scheme of things? To tell these American kids that their fathers unjust deportationone that directly violates his legal protectionsis less significant than talking points about tariffs or other poll-tested issues would be an incredibly callous move.

This approach represents a disturbing trend of what could be described as the Theater of Neutrality, where serious constitutional crises are trivialized and portrayed as simple political disagreements. Fundamental questions regarding the rule of law are treated as mere issues amidst a broader political landscape, diluting their significance. It reflects a cowardly stance that prioritizes political expediency over necessary moral clarity.

Compounding this issue, Newsom's framing of the situation appears to draw on the administrations misleading narratives. He questions whether the defenders of Abrego Garca are somehow endorsing MS-13, a framing that ignores a federal courts finding that the allegations against Garca stemmed from a discredited database and were based on testimony from a discredited detective.

No, Governor Newsom, this is not about defending a gang; it is about upholding the Constitution. It is about defending due process and reinforcing the principle that no individual, not even a sitting President, is above the law. It is about recognizing that when the Supreme Court issues a unanimous directive, it is not to be ignored or ridiculed.

In stark terms, two plus two equals four, there are twenty-four hours in a day, and if we cannot muster the moral fortitude to oppose a President who openly defies a Supreme Court order, we risk losing the very constitutional republic we profess to uphold.

The call to action is clear: We must hold the center, not because it is an easy task, but because it is crucial for the preservation of our democratic ideals. We must recognize that some issues are not mere distractions; they are the bedrock of our society. The rule of law is not simply a policy preference; it forms the foundation upon which all governance rests.

As we navigate through this moment of constitutional gravity, those who fail to find their moral compass may be remembered alongside those who watched silently as our Republic faced unprecedented challenges.

In light of these developments, one has to wonder: Has Gavin Newsom lost touch with the reality of the situation?

Mike Brock, a former tech executive and part of the leadership team at Block, originally shared these insights in his column, "Notes From the Circus."