Okay, so here's a tweet from Trump on June 5th, 2017.

In any event, we are extreme vetting people coming into the US in order to help keep our country safe.

The courts are slow and political, exclamation point.

Which brings to mind this question, which is a question that does not normally come up.

Why does the president have to do what the Supreme Court

says or any court really? Why does he have to care? So you remember in February

when a federal judge temporarily blocked the enforcement of the

president's first travel ban, the one that barred entry to the US for citizens of

seven majority of Muslim countries, Trump said in a tweet, he's criticized the opinion of this so-called judge.

The so-called judge in this case was U.S. District Judge James L. Robart.

So a lot of people are aware of this ban because it sparked a huge outcry.

We saw large protests at airports around the country.

Volunteer lawyers were rushing to help people who were being detained.

But let's just focus on the tweet itself and think about what it means.

What's pretty remarkable about the president's comment there is that it's an attack on judicial

legitimacy, that this idea that judges are legitimate

and that the rulings that they make are legitimate too. So that brings up the

really maybe unusual or weird question of whether Trump has to bother to listen to the

courts at all. It's not a typical question we ask about presidents but he's not

a typical president. I know this is not normal. So one of the amazing things about living in 2017 is that we are starting to ask questions about stuff that we've always sort of taken for granted.

Yep, that's why we're getting down to the fundamentals.

This is what Trump can teach us about Khan Law, an ongoing series of indefinite length

...