In the meantime, you have federal judges in the lower courts who repeatedly stall anything and everything the president tries to do by saying it's unconstitutional, only to have that ruling overturned by the Supreme Court because, as it turns out, it's completely constitutional. This can mean only the following:
1. Those lower court judges don't know the Constitution, and/or
2. It's a delay tactic driven by purely political motives.
Or
3. The Supreme Court is rubberstamping Trump's actions for "purely political motives" of its very own.
Welcome to the forum, I guess.
That would be a good argument if SCOTUS consistently voted along party lines, but I'm not sure that's the case. Even if it were, it would mean that the liberal Justices are doing the exact same thing you're accusing conservative Justices of doing.
Yes, the federal judiciary in general is swarming with people who spend their careers seeking to give their personal political views and pet issues the force of constitutional law. I'd never suggest otherwise.
Unfortunately for you, conservative Justices are historically more likely to disagree with each other, which logically leads to the conclusion that they're less likely to vote among party lines. So I take it back... it's a terrible argument no matter what.
Okay, I'll concede for the sake of argument that conservative judicial hacks are somewhat more likely to be able to confound a basic ideological Turing test than liberal judicial hacks. I really don't think this goes as far towards proving that they're on the up-and-up as you think it does. Clearly you don't think they disagree with one another so much that generalizations about their ideology can't be made, otherwise you wouldn't be describing them as "conservative justices".
