Rachel last night said whopping majorities both disapprove Trump's travel restrictions and disapprove ignoring court rulings to impose them.
But Trump voters support the restrictions and 51 % would be OK with him simply ignoring any court decision or decisions against them.
They elected him to be The Duce, after all, and impose his and their will even against opposition from the rigged, corrupt, and undemocratic system in DC.
At a guess, the idea is widespread on the right that the particular liberal lies about the constitution they object to, the ones that make them insist on strict construction on those issues, are actually wholly usurpatious and illegitimate lies, with no real authority in the eyes of anyone loyal to real constitutional government.
To do it right, liberals should have got amendments passed to make legitimate changes to the constitution affecting these matters rather than imposing their effects via a blatantly mendacious jurisprudence.
What should a people, a movement, a party, or a president do, confronted with a judiciary wedded to egregious lies of which they heartily disapprove about what is and what is not constitutional?
Disobey the courts and obey only the constitution, on these points?
Note that these virtuous almost-rebels who so insist on Article V neither ask nor answer the question why they themselves are not bound to rely on the amendment process to impose their own preferences on constitutional law.
Others, more frank, would insist without apology the constitution ought to be both strictly constructed and too hard to change, though the admission makes nonsense of their pose as champions of democracy and the sovereignty of the people.
That in defense of presidential defiance of the courts, in deference to the constitution as, according to them, it ought to be read.