The other thing is that it’s so lawless a decision that it cannot be respected as precedent. It feels like a Supreme Court that succeeds this one should ignore its rule against advisory opinions to immediately overturn this one without waiting for a case to come up to do it.
fundamentally being in the majority on Trump v US is immediately disqualifying for a supreme court justice. it declares yourself in opposition to the foundations of the American project of democracy and limited government. all six of them must be impeached and replaced.
Assuming we all live to see such a court come around, I think that Trump v US would be overturned & Chevron would be reinstated in remarkably short order.
The scathing parts of the dissents are aimed at building up a philosophy for doing it
1) They don't respect Stare Decisis
2) They contradict each other in ways that are politically convenient for the majority
There are a few places, but Sotomayor points out that the majority in Trump has ruled against the "deeply rooted" tradition that no man is above the law and cites Dobbs to get the "deeply rooted" test in. Obviously about heightening the contradiction
