Text: When thinking about constitutional law topics, it is important not to lose track of the fact that it is all nonsense. The phrase "take care" in the constitution does not actually imply anything one way or another about for-cause removal protections for the NLRB ALJs. In a well-functioning system, judges would recognize this fact and leave lawmaking to the legislature, but we have a system where judicial supremacy combines with constitutional vagueness to effectively give judges discretionary and perpetual veto rights over all legislative and executive actions. Judges naturally use these discretionary veto rights in a way that generally aligns with their political preferences and thus the three Republican judges read the phrase "take care" to generate their preferred outcome — hindering the administrative state and labor law — while the one Democratic judge reads the phrase "take care" to generate their preferred, opposite outcome.
Text: When thinking about constitutional law topics, it is important not to lose track of the fact that it is all nonsense. The phrase "take care" in the constitution does not actually imply anything one way or another about for-cause removal protections for the NLRB ALJs. In a well-functioning system, judges would recognize this fact and leave lawmaking to the legislature, but we have a system where judicial supremacy combines with constitutional vagueness to effectively give judges discretionary and perpetual veto rights over all legislative and executive actions. Judges naturally use these discretionary veto rights in a way that generally aligns with their political preferences and thus the three Republican judges read the phrase "take care" to generate their preferred outcome — hindering the administrative state and labor law — while the one Democratic judge reads the phrase "take care" to generate their preferred, opposite outcome.