Interesting. What, then, do you make of the extensive rulings that the current court has issued to block or overturn Trump's actions?
How do you reconcile your 'nakedly partisan' theory with the court rulings that, for example, overruled Trumps attempt to use the AEA for immigration enforcement, overruled his attempt to deploy the National Guard without the consent of state governments, overruled his attempts to unilaterally impose tariffs, overruled his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship, and so on?
Note the use of “Republican” in the comment you’re replying to: they are trying to walk a fine line between protecting the guy who gave them the votes needed to do things like Roberts’ career-long goal of rolling back the VRA while protecting the core of the party (e.g. the inconsistent logic used to protect the Federal Reserve, which all of the monied interests wanted, but none of the other independent agencies; or the tariffs, which are deeply unpopular with most businesses) or permanently grant powers they don’t want a Democratic president to use (e.g. deploy the national guard over a governor’s wishes).
Things like birthright citizenship are a good example of that latter concept: the law is extremely clear there so they ruled against him because the only alternative would be declaring outright that the President is not bound by the constitution, but in many other cases they’ve made quite unusual actions to preempt lower courts before either finding a new executive power or, where the law is clear, stalling to allow things like deportations to proceed in the interim before ruling against.
How do you reconcile your 'nakedly partisan' theory with the court rulings that, for example, overruled Trumps attempt to use the AEA for immigration enforcement, overruled his attempt to deploy the National Guard without the consent of state governments, overruled his attempts to unilaterally impose tariffs, overruled his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship, and so on?