This is next level rationalizing. For a president to say in no clear terms that he is going to make a rule he knows is illegal is something else.
At least other administrations justify their attempts to break the law and mount some defense.
At least other administrations justify their attempts to break the law and mount some defense.
There isn't a mechanism to stop unconstitutional laws from being passed or left on the books.
for example, if the Court ruled that the Controlled Substances Act were unconstitutional, the government would be forced to free prisoners convicted of violating it, since the law was illegitimate the whole time. but if Congress repealed the act, they'd have no such obligation, since it was still a crime when the felony was committed.
The court doesn’t get to make law by threatening to make law. They have to actually do it.
You can't really avoid this either without throwing out judicial precedent because "knowing how the court will rule on subsequent cases" is basically the same as law.
But that's not law. That's consistent interpretation of law. Very different.