In a fiery exchange at a House immigration hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz accused acting U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) director Ken Cuccinelli of pursuing a "heinous, white supremacist ideology at all costs."

During the hearing of the House Oversight Committee, Wasserman Schultz took an aggressive tack, accused the administration of making "specious attempts to distinguish" between legal and illegal immigration, and accused the acting agency head of working in tandem with the president to suppress levels of non-white people for racism's sake.

“I think it’s important for us all to be clear about what you have been aiming to accomplish,” Wasserman Schultz began to the witness. “You and Mr. Trump don’t want anyone who looks or talks differently than Caucasian-Americans to be allowed into this country.

The congresswoman continued, “You want to block all immigration and make life harder for immigrants, and you have demonstrated that you will pursue this heinous, white supremacist ideology at all costs — even if it means making critically ill children your collateral damage in the process."

Cuccinelli fired back that the congresswoman's assertions were "false" and "defamatory," to which the congresswoman responded by telling him not to interrupt her.

"I am not a white supremacist, as you alluded," the acting director said when he finally got a chance to respond. "Nor is the president."

The two went into an intense back-and-forth over the administration's updated "public charge" rule, which was announced in August and is meant to cut down on legal immigration of people unlikely to support themselves without government welfare.

Wasserman Schultz asked if the administration was trying to "shut down the American dream for immigrants who may not be rich or white with this policy."

"No," the acting director responded.

Wasserman concluded by accusing the administration of using "intimidation tactics" against immigrants "to make sure that people understand that they're not welcome here if they're brown or if they need help."

"That's false," Cuccinelli responded despite Wasserman Schultz's effort to silence him by yielding back her time and talking over him. "That's utterly false."

If lower courts, over the course of a few years, systematically gut an area of our law and Constitution with completely illegitimate rulings, and finally, after five years, the Supreme Court walks back one of their rulings while explicitly preserving the foundation of their civil disobedience against the law, is that even a victory?

A headline on Tuesday heralded (or decried) a “Trump victory on immigration detention” at the Supreme Court. In fact, this has nothing to do with Trump; the case at hand was one of the many ways California district judges and the Ninth Circuit impeded even the Obama administration from deporting the worst of the worst. In Nielsen v. Preap, the Supreme Court reversed a Ninth Circuit decision preventing ICE from detaining criminal aliens without bond hearings who were released by sanctuary cities for a period of time before ICE recaptured them. After allowing countless violent criminal aliens to go unapprehended and commit an unknown number of avoidable crimes for almost five years, the Supreme Court finally slapped down this nonsense.

That is the good news.

The bad news is that the five justices in the majority just foreclosed only one of the many avenues the Left has to block deportations and violate our sovereignty in just one step of the ever-growing deportation process. As the lower courts and the legal profession continue to engage in civil disobedience against our immigration laws, the Supreme Court, in the Preap decision, implicitly blessed almost all of the other lawsuits in similar but slightly different cases by explicitly greenlighting judicial jurisdiction to hear these cases to begin with. Clarence Thomas, who was joined by Gorsuch in opposing this rationale, made it clear that current law bars the courts from hearing all litigation against the deportation procedures at this step in the process. Thus, the difference between the concurring opinion of Thomas and Gorsuch and the majority opinion of the other three Republican appointees is akin to the difference between a surgeon slicing out 100 percent of a tumor and slicing out only part of a tumor, which, as anyone knows, is all the difference.