Trump's Legal U-Turns May Test Supreme Court's Patience

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

The news is currently being flooded with President Donald Trump's visit to Texas, but Trump's other actions are not to be ignored. Trumps administration has switched sides on both worker's rights and voting roles, changing to the support of more conservative views. (read more on worker's right changes here).
The issue is not so much the views that are being supported, rather the aspect of change. Both cases include forms of interpretation in regards to federal statutes, and both changes are made to counter that of the Obama Administration. In the past, justices have "lashed out" at such changes or shifts. What's angering to the justices can be interpreted from Justice Antonin Scalia's response to a previous proposed change, asking “Why should we listen to you rather than the solicitors general who took the opposite position... why should we defer to the views of the current administration?"
Justices typically don't respect these shifts as they are almost always based on new people in positions that are against that of those who held their seats in former years. In fact, the change concerning worker's rights now takes an opposite position, proposing restrictions on labor unions and the ability for workers to get together in response to issues at the workplace. 
This relates quite directly to our current area of study, as the changes proposed are meant to take away rights from people, perhaps viewing them in a similar way as our framers: unreliable and with only personal gain at heart. Beyond this, the connection between Trump's administration and the Supreme court puts weight on the relationship between the executive and judicial branches, and relationship that is often overlooked in the present, being swept aside by Trump's claims of closing the government if he doesn't get his way. However, it is important to keep an eye on the supreme court's interactions with the Trump administration for they, too, play an incredibly important role in controlling change, especially if that change is made to counter a previous administration instead of the greater good. 
When taking in this information it helps to look through the bias. Does the matter of change towards a conservative view really mean the administration is attempting to go against the Obama administration? How can one distinguish from spiteful shifts rather than those that are truly proposed for positive change? Any Trump post can lead to political arguments, but it may be more constructive to view these proposals as something that happens to almost every new administration, and to focus on what is right and wrong instead of the President himself (aka please be nice and don't fight about loving or hating the admin). 

Article link | highlighted words lead to other supporting viewpoints or evidence