[rayiner]

> That "mother may I" phrase implies asking for pre-approval for routine stuff, which obviously isn't what's at issue here.

There is no relevant “routine” versus “non-routine” distinction in either the constitution or the law. Obviously, the folks who had just overthrown their government and created a new one contemplated elected branches that could make dramatic changes!

> A president ignoring the law is definitely sufficiently "extraordinary" to justify temporary injunctions, and the fact that he's doing it a lot only reinforces the need for the checks and balances.

It’s not, actually. The primary check on the elected branches is elections, not lawsuits. The courts exist primarily to vindicate personal rights, not to manage national policy. The framers never even envisioned that courts could enjoin the President for discretionary acts. Even Marbury rejects that notion.

Here, the personal right—someone’s employment as an FTC Commissioner—is the tail that’s wagging the dog. It’s not “extraordinary” because losing your job is such a grievous injury. It’s just a proxy for the government policies the FTC Commissioner has the power to execute. So the courts are being invoked in a battle over policy, which is exactly where the power of the courts is the weakest (by design).