I vehemently disagree. Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator (Individual-1) to a criminal conspiracy, committing multiple felonies to effect the outcome of the 2016 election in his favor. His own personal attorney and fixer, Michael Cohen is going to prison in part because of his role in this illicit scheme. The owner of AMI (National Enquirer) David Pecker was provided with a non-prosecution agreement for his role in this conspiracy. Both of which have provided corroborating evidence to the Prosecutors of the SDNY, appointed by Trump himself mind you, who then presented that corroborating evidence to a Federal Court, and which a Federal Judge accepted as fully truthful and accurate. Trump faces serious legal jeopardy once out of office for these crimes.
Agreed, the courts would ultimately decide. And while it is just a guess, the precedence here, and the available data, coupled with the statements from Trump himself saying that he would essentially only declare a National Emergency as a means to fulfill a campaign promise, will result in him being shot down by the court.
And the ideological makeup of the court should have no bearing here. I thought the point of nominating originalist jurists was so that they did not legislate from the bench. You seem to be advocating, or expecting the exact opposite of that, and seem to hope they do legislate from the bench? Am I misreading you?