Replies

"Au contraire. He/she most certainly could do that."

Well, using your application of logic, a President could do anything they wish, so long as they had the political capital to spend. That argument becomes, fairly quickly, absurd, especially in practical application.

"Youngstown Sheet and Tube isn't on point at all. "

Sure it is. Presidents don't have the authority to make law, and they certainly don't have the authority to ignore law, or so held the court in Youngstown. Presidents, using an Executive Order, can wield power that has been previously ceded to them by Congress and codified in statutory law.

"Even it it were, it's just a court case."

So was Marbury v. Madison. How did that turn out?

In the 230+ years of the Republic, when the Supreme Court speaks, the country listens, including the President.

What's absurd is the idea that courts can be authoritative even when they are powerless. Nine old farts in pajamas can't make the President do anything he doesn't believe he should do. Normally the people respect the Supreme Court and are inclined to accept it's judgments. President's have to be careful about crossing the court. But that doesn't mean there is never again going to be a situation in which the Court is on the wrong side of the public and the President can go his own way with impunity. In fact the courts have squandered most of their goodwill in the last few decades; crossing them is getting more thinkable, not less so.

Of course the only check on presidential power is political. Welcome to
republican government. That's in the nature of the beast. And by the way, Marbury doesn't hold what you apparently think it holds.