It’s easy to treat this like a tantrum about the Court.

But the signal is simpler: this is a power expansion being described in real time.

“The Supreme Court… gave me… far more powers and strength than I had prior…”

“I can use Licenses to do absolutely ‘terrible’ things…”

That’s not commentary. That’s a mechanism:

Ruling → usable authority expands → discretion increases → outcomes get more coercive with “legal certainty.”

He’s not arguing for tighter limits. He’s identifying alternative pathways. Tools that remain available and can be used more aggressively.

Then comes the second tell:

“babies of slaves”

That’s not historical framing. It’s a scope reduction, turning a constitutional guarantee into a narrow, negotiable exception.

Once a guarantee becomes “only for X,” exclusion becomes administratively easy.

Expand authority without tightening constraints, and discretion fills the gap.

This doesn’t require bad intent. It's how systems behave under these conditions.

What evidence would distinguish a real expansion of power from rhetoric here?