You nailed it - there was never any intention of 670 judges across the nation to unilaterally strip the President of power any time their political party disagrees. if the Democrat party thought of this sooner they would have done it to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation as well (though the Supreme Court did rule slavery was to be enforced in all states because at that time it was still fully written with no caveats multiple times throughout the original Constitution and slaves weren't redefined to "prisoners" until the 13th Amendment was ratified.)
This is a clearly defined Separation of Powers issue, and the Supreme Court has already ruled on this indirectly (W. VA VS EPA) when they clarified that Executive Agencies can't make up new rules and laws but have full authority to enforce those already passed by Congress.
Also it should be noted that "Slippery Slope" arguments are not a fallacy in US law and in fact are a serious legal consideration judges must make for every decision because US law is Precedence based (not that you said anything of the sort, but this goes to your asking for clarification). A random low level judge setting precedence that courts have more power over Executive function than the entire Executive Branch sets extraordinarily bad precedent because there is no legal limitation or power specifying what they did as an explicitly defined District Judge authority either - meaning precedent was set for tens of thousands of judges across every minor township to be able to do the same thing. It was an incredibly stupid, uneducated, and lawless attempt to usurp Executive power without any consideration or understanding of how the law actually works.
You nailed it - there was never any intention of 670 judges across the nation to unilaterally strip the President of power any time their political party disagrees. if the Democrat party thought of this sooner they would have done it to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation as well (though the Supreme Court did rule slavery was to be enforced in all states because at that time it was still fully written with no caveats multiple times throughout the original Constitution and slaves weren't redefined to "prisoners" until the 13th Amendment was ratified.)
This is a clearly defined Separation of Powers issue, and the Supreme Court has already ruled on this indirectly (W. VA VS EPA) when they clarified that Executive Agencies can't make up new rules and laws but have full authority to enforce those already passed by Congress.
Also it should be noted that "Slippery Slope" arguments are not a fallacy in US law and in fact are a serious legal consideration judges must make for every decision because US law is Precedence based (not that you said anything of the sort, but this goes to your asking for clarification). A random low level judge setting precedence that courts have more power over Executive function than the entire Executive Branch sets extraordinarily bad precedent because there is no legal limitation or power specifying what they did as an explicitly defined District Judge authority either - meaning precedent was set for tens of thousands of judges across every minor township to be able to do the same thing. It was an incredibly stupid, uneducated, and lawless attempt to usurp Executive power without any consideration or understanding of how the law actually works.