You know what, I think you're right on this. Unlike the switch in time, I don't think they'll rule any better on any other cases though. The next EPA one has me really worried
I predict that SCOTUS will rule in favor of Trump on this one. They'll once again point to "originalism", like this: I think it'll be 6-3 or 5-4, with Roberts being the only unknown, caught in the middle of attempting to preserve whatever shreds of legitimacy SCOTUS has left. How SCOTUS rules on the more consequential case of presidential immunity is the real question.Law professor Kurt Lash has shown that the crafting of Section 3 to omit the president was not an oversight. As his work shows, an earlier draft of the clause expressly mentioned the president; that mention was removed. And many (digital) trees have been felled to address a related issue: Whether the president is properly described as occupying an “office of the United States”? At best, that work is ambiguous, though the Colorado Supreme Court made a strong argument that the president is.