I normally don't particularly care about "strongly worded" dissents, but Justice Jackson's dissent specifically calling the Court's jurisprudence "Calvinball but Trump always wins" is something I'd imagine will be in future law school classes about this era.

I generally feel the same way about dissents. But yeah, if SCOTUS continues to allow Trump to behave as though there is only one branch of govt, it will be important for dissenting justices to say "it was contemporaneously obvious that the Court's handling of Trump was wrong."

Always a challenge to write posts these days because we sort of have to say "under the logic of prior cases, this should be struck down," as opposed to "this *will* be struck down."