The Supreme Court's final stretch this term is being framed as a set of separate legal stories: birthright citizenship, the power to fire federal officials, election rules, campaign spending, transgender athlete bans, and geofence warrants.
I think the larger story is simpler than that. The country is still trying to decide how much of the federal government should bend around the presidency.
That question cuts across party lines more than people like to admit. If a president can redefine citizenship by executive theory, remove independent officials at will, pressure election rules through litigation, and benefit from a Court willing to keep expanding executive space, then the office becomes less like a temporary job and more like a permanent gravitational force.
The tricky part is that every side likes executive power when its own side holds it. Then the same power looks terrifying when the other side wins. That is why the institutional question matters more than the daily team-sport version of politics.
America is heading into its 250th birthday with a very old argument back on the table: are we governed by laws and offices, or by whoever can gather enough authority into one person for long enough?
Thomas W. / keep the receipts