But that's fine because the executive can appeal and is in a much better position to do so, and it makes far more sense for the law to be consistent than to onl

But that's fine because the executive can appeal and is in a much better position to do so, and it makes far more sense for the law to be consistent than to only benefit those with the power and time to fight back. Since when did we start arguing that executive power must be unchecked for fear of it being slightly inconvenienced?