The Courts could not stop him.
Suppose Trump suddenly issued a royal decree declaring slavery legal. That’s clearly unconstitutional. How could anyone stop this?
The obvious answer should be that the courts should step in and say, “That’s unconstitutional. You can’t do that.” However, the recent SCOTUS decision states that courts cannot do this.
So suppose next that several states introduce slavery with millions of slaves. Once again, you’d think that the courts could stop that with an injunction. However, you’d be wrong again.
No, each slave would have to file suit against the government for damages incurred. Each of those millions of individual cases could be appealed up to the Supreme Court, who would have to decide on millions of individual cases. The pro-slavery lobby would no doubt come up with dozens of nit-picking reasons to throw out all the cases, or they could at least delay the decisions by years in related litigation.
There are hundreds of similar cases where Trump can issue any royal decree he wants, however illegal or unconstitutional, and it would be nearly impossible for the courts to stop him, now that they are banned from issuing injunctions.
Consider especially the warrantless kidnapping of innocent brown-skinned Americans, followed by shipping them off to torture chambers around the world, where they remain for the rest of their lives. The American courts, according to the new SCOTUS ruling, cannot stop this. Even worse, once these individuals have been ‘disappeared’ into foreign hellholes, the US government has no way to bring them back or release them. No one will ever hear from them again.
What if some of those prisoners should die in captivity? First, no one in America would ever hear about it, and second, even if the death were known, the guy is dead, and so there is nothing any US court could do about it.
Are all these horrible scenarios what the Founding Fathers wanted when they wrote the Constitution? Is this the American system of justice?