I don’t know, this seems to be on point:
“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
You’re right. I’ll have to credit her for that one. But I don’t know why it’s so hard for her and other “conservative” judges to understand that their job is to rule on the law, not to invent the law, that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that laws mean what those who enacted them intended them to mean, nothing more, nothing less. The alternative is chaos, then tyranny.