I keep seeing this “if you disagree with me you must believe something really bad and I’m going to put those words into your mouth” rhetorical device around. Do

I keep seeing this “if you disagree with me you must believe something really bad and I’m going to put those words into your mouth” rhetorical device around. Does it have a name? It’s tedious. The court’s position that the executive cannot unilaterally govern by bending the rules is a good thing! The problem is that the line they draw is arbitrary - and they just insert their agenda at the boundary. The perfect thus becomes the enemy of the good, because the court chose a questionable boundary and because the legislature is now responsible for passing the necessary laws - as they should. In reality, they won’t do that, but that’s not the court’s fault. Now you can certainly make the argument that the court should stick with the precedent of deferring to the executive instead of the legislature (laws after all, cannot anticipate everything and the court can avoid having to create arbitrary boundaries). But that’s a conversation that’s got nothing to do with climate change or any specific outcome. For comparison, how did you feel about the court deferring to the Trump executive? Was their rule bending something we want to see more of? If a liberal court broke with precedent in the same manner to restrict Trump from doing something crazy, would that be good?