In the latest episode of “Judges Gone Wild,” one judge seemed to think her job included moonlighting as an escape artist’s assistant. Judges are supposed to interpret and apply the law, but it looks like this judge took her role in a different direction. Instead of ensuring justice within the courtroom, she allegedly assisted in a high-stakes game of hide-and-seek right on the courthouse steps. Shouldn’t the courtroom be a place where laws are upheld rather than cleverly sidestepped?

Judges, much like everyone else in this country, take an oath to uphold the law. But what happens when a judge allegedly flips the script and decides to play puppeteer, pulling strings to thwart the policies she doesn’t agree with? In this case, it involves a daring attempt to help someone evade federal authorities. It’s a bit like a bank defending a robber’s withdrawal because the cashier didn’t like banking policies. Unbelievable, right? Unfortunately, we’re not watching a crime drama; this is real-world dysfunction at its finest.

Naturally, there are people stepping up to defend her actions. They argue the chaos of new ICE policies caught everyone unprepared, judging the conduct as a grey area open to interpretation. The idea that this “fumble” is all part of adjusting to new procedures might sound plausible to some, but let’s get real. A judge’s job description does not include obstructing federal agents. It really shouldn’t be that hard to figure out that aiding and abetting is not part of the judicial toolkit unless they propose wearing striped pajamas instead of robes.

Now, as any good debate does, this one is headed to court. The judge in question is crying foul, claiming constitutional rights violations and calling upon the Tenth Amendment as her shield of choice. However, much like trying to close the barn doors after the horses have bolted, this defense seems a bit late in the game. The reality is, judges can’t just toss aside the rules because they dislike them. Imagining they could might make for a good plot twist on TV, but here in reality, it’s legally and ethically dubious at best.

So, here we are, waiting to see how this courtroom drama unfolds. Judges are expected to be the embodiment of impartiality and to hold the law in the highest regard, not skirt around it with hubris and detours. Perhaps the strangest element is seeing a public servant, tasked with upholding the legal pillars of society, sidestep those same pillars when she felt like it. As the case continues, let’s hope this serves as a reminder that laws exist for a reason and upholding them isn’t optional, even for those in robes.