'Outcome feels preordained': Supreme Court appears ready to give Trump new 'immense' power

The Supreme Court was expected to hand President Donald Trump more new powers in a case scheduled to begin Monday.

The conservative-leaning high court has planned to hear Trump v. Slaughter, "a case whose outcome feels preordained," according to a Slate report published Thursday.

"The six-justice supermajority is almost certain to fulfill a decadeslong conservative goal to shift an immense amount of power from Congress to President Donald Trump," Slate reported.

Conservative lawyers have planned to argue that the Constitution grants the president total control over the executive branch and the "the freedom to fire federal officials who may impose a modest, independent check on the president’s agenda. Proponents of this argument claim that it is rooted in the original, historical understanding of executive power, as confirmed by centuries of tradition."

Legal historians disagree. They "have refuted the rotten moorings of this bogus theory with devastating precision" and debunked this interpretation of the Constitution.

"And yet there is no real question that the Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed justices will endorse it anyway in Slaughter, handing Trump sweeping new authority to abuse his office in direct violation of federal law. This near-inevitable ruling confirms the most stinging critique of originalism: It allows judges to align constitutional meaning with the Republican Party’s preferences, disregarding evidence that contradicts their desired outcome," according to Slate.

The repercussions could have lasting consequences.

"The result in Slaughter will inflict profound damage on the separation of powers, democracy, and individual rights, all on the basis of a legal urban legend. This fraudulent originalism permits an easily discredited myth to swallow the truth—and with it, yet another legal restraint on Trump’s pursuit of unchecked control over the machinery of government," Slate reported.

The conservative legal movement has long championed the "unitary executive" theory, which has argued for expansive presidential power and contends that the president should have near-total control over the executive branch, effectively limiting congressional and judicial oversight. This theory seeks to dramatically increase executive branch authority by arguing that the president's constitutional role as head of the executive branch means all executive power should be centralized under direct presidential control.