KBJ's dissent is 14 pages. You quoted two sentences from her conclusion. Here's the entire two-paragraph conclusion. Posting this so we can all determine for ourselves if KBJ's dissent -- or even the conclusion of her dissent -- is "rife with emotion," and if it's not, what possible reason you might have for saying that.
______________________________
Given the fact-based nature of the issue in this case and the many serious harms that result from allowing the President to dramatically reconfigure the Federal Government, it was eminently reasonable for the District Court to maintain the status quo while the courts evaluate the lawfulness of the President’s executive action. At bottom, this case is about whether that action amounts to a structural overhaul that usurps Congress’s policymaking prerogatives—and it is hard to imagine deciding that question in any meaningful way after those changes have happened. Yet, for some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.
In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless. Lower court judges have their fingers on the pulse of what is happening on the ground and are indisputably best positioned to determine the relevant facts—including those that underlie fair assessments of the merits, harms, and equities. I see no basis to conclude that the District Court erred—let alone clearly so—in finding that the President is attempting to fundamentally restructure the Federal Government. Therefore, I would not disrupt the lower courts’ preservation of the status quo. Instead, I would leave intact their protection of the historical relationship between Congress and the President, preventing irreparable harm to the plaintiffs and the public while the Judiciary does the critical work of evaluating this exercise of power.
