I must admit up front that I stole that wonderful “veneer of normalcy” line from a commenter under this Instapundit post:
At this point the TROs are basically an automatic judicial veto on all new policy, and then the courts of appeals decide whether the judicial veto should be suspended. Whatever form of government that is, let’s please not call it “democracy.”
The relevant passage from that comment comes with a zombie apocalypse reference from a book that I fear is very relevant to the near future being crafted by ‘conservative’ Chief Justice Roberts and his loyal team of laughably shallow faux jurists. The commenters version:
The zombies are there but the problem hasn’t been really understood. They’re calling it super rabies or something and treating it like a like public health problem. Early on there’s a scene set at lunchtime in NYC where a zombie is chasing a victim down the street in Manhattan and the other pedestrians are just like “Jesus this town” and continue on with their day failing to recognize danger. Everything continues to stumble on getting gradually worse for 6-8 months or so. Then the tipping point comes. In about 12 horrific hours everything completely disintegrates. Friday lunch: Subway and soda. Saturday Breakfast: braaains.
This is where I see things right now. The US and rest of the west are tottering on with a veneer of normalcy but bubbling under is a crisis. …
At this point it is hard to even guess what strategy Mr. Skid Mark has in mind. Stalling and hoping Mr. Trump will blow things up on his own doesn’t seem to be working. Professor Turley weighed in a couple of days ago:
This week, the Supreme Court continued to deliberate over what to do with the growing number of national or universal injunctions issued by federal district courts against the Trump Administration.
The court has long failed to address the problem, and what I call “chronic injunctivitis” is now raging across the court system. Justices have only worsened the condition with conflicting and at times incomprehensible opinions. …
Under President Barack Obama, Justice Elena Kagan expressed outrage over the injunctions in public comments at Northwestern University School of Law. Kagan lashed out at the obvious “forum shopping” by then conservative advocates to get before favorable courts, insisting “It just cannot be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years it takes to go through the normal [appellate] process.” …
However, when the current case came up before the Supreme Court on one of the Trump injunctions, Kagan suggested that this was “different,” because Trump was clearly wrong. … It was a curious point coming from a justice who had previously acknowledged that challengers were forum-shopping by going to favorable judges, as with the current cases coming out of largely blue states.
…it is clearly time for the Supreme Court to do something about this.
Despite a majority of justices harrumphing for years about these injunctions, lower court judges continue to issue them with abandon. …
The solution to chronic injunctivitis is simple: You give district judges a dose of clarity…
Don’t hold your breath. I would expect more stalling. (No leadership, poor management, and very poor asswiping skills…’Skid Mark’ Roberts seems determined to further solidify his pathetic legacy for the history of our times. As if there has been any doubt since about 2012.)
Of course, one benefit of his dawdling – all while the joke of a Chief Justice continues to share all of the unsavory aspects of his skid mark with the country – is the continued exposure of just how intellectually unserious and/or blatantly political his loyal minions on the court really are. Laugh at these dolts while you can – especially the Obama and Biden appointees, but don’t leave out the Trump 1.0 entries – but, remember, the tipping points comes eventually.
*** *** ***
UPDATE – Late this same afternoon, Professor Reynolds has more to say on the topic:
Federal judges are working overtime to defy President Trump.
How much thought have they given to what happens if he defies them in turn? …
It all raises a question: What if Trump simply ignores these rulings?
He wouldn’t be the first president to do so. …
…in recent decades, presidential defiance of a Supreme Court opinion has become almost unthinkable.
The high court’s prestige has been far greater than it was earlier in US history, and no president has enjoyed the political whip hand held by FDR.
The press, too, has generally been very supportive of the Supreme Court — especially when Republicans hold the presidency.
But what about now?
The judiciary’s prestige has been badly damaged, in part because of Democrats’ attacks after rulings on abortion, affirmative action and gun control went against their preferences.
And the power of the press has much declined: Despite the legacy media’s unrelenting anti-Trump negativity, the number of Americans who think the country is “on the right track” is at a near-record high…
If the media can’t move that needle, how much can it hurt Trump over a disputed legal question — especially when large majorities of the public support the president on spending cuts and deportations, the issues drawing the fiercest judicial opposition?
In the past, defying the courts would have looked like an abandonment of the rule of law. But given the courts’ behavior, that’s not the argument it used to be. …
Previously, the balance worked because the judiciary had self-control and understood the dangers of overreach.
Now, like so many of our institutions, it’s been addled and corrupted by Trump-hatred — and one way or another, a corrective is in order.
the philo t. custis institute 
Pingback: Of Judicial Skid Marks and Tipping Points – the philo t. custis institute