I think it's the opposite: They quibble at the margins (e.g., "effectuate" vs. "facilitate") while endorsing the essence of whatever Trump wants to do. That way, casual observers still think they're relevant, but they never actually fight Trump.
Reposted from
Asha Rangappa
I agree that this is the logical endpoint, but it is also likely its Kryptonite because then it makes our courts impotent. Courts don’t like giving up their power (see post 9/11). So the endgame, if the courts want to stay relevant, is to say the whole thing is unconstitutional from the jump
Comments