This is next level rationalizing. For a president to say in no clear terms that he is going to make a rule he knows is illegal is something else.

At least other administrations justify their attempts to break the law and mount some defense.

This kind of thing happens all the time though. The most salient instances being when states enact abortion restrictions that are known to be unconstitutional and were historically subject to injunctions and ruled against.

There isn't a mechanism to stop unconstitutional laws from being passed or left on the books.

It's not an illegal rule until the Supreme Court actually makes a ruling. The Supreme Court does not determine Law merely by speaking.

notionally, the rule was (il)legal since its enactment. rulings merely affirm the legal status of rules, and give the Court the opportunity to order remedies.

for example, if the Court ruled that the Controlled Substances Act were unconstitutional, the government would be forced to free prisoners convicted of violating it, since the law was illegitimate the whole time. but if Congress repealed the act, they'd have no such obligation, since it was still a crime when the felony was committed.

What are you talking about? The court ruled in favor of the administration in the first case, and against it in the second one. The administration complied after the second decision. This is how checks and balances work.

No this is Kavanaugh trying to have his cake and eat it by saying one thing and doing another. He ducked out of making a ruling and Biden forced him to do so.

The court doesn’t get to make law by threatening to make law. They have to actually do it.

The court doesn't, or at least shouldn't, make law.

You're about 850 years too late on that front. Common Law has been a thing since Henry the Second and we just ggyG'd the whole UK legal system and edited from there.

You can't really avoid this either without throwing out judicial precedent because "knowing how the court will rule on subsequent cases" is basically the same as law.

> You can't really avoid this either without throwing out judicial precedent because "knowing how the court will rule on subsequent cases" is basically the same as law.

But that's not law. That's consistent interpretation of law. Very different.

You're confusing statutes and the law. They're not the same thing. Just like a regulation isn't a statute, but it is the law.