Fox News legal analyst Jonathan Turley offered a translation of a scathing dissent written by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito over the weekend, and he's definitely on the mark here.

As previously reported, the Supreme Court stepped in and issued an emergency injunction, halting Trump administration deportations and applying that order to what appears to be an entire class of detainees. While the majority, consisting of the Court's liberals as well as Justices Roberts, Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch, gave no legal basis for their ruling, Alito wrote a dissent that was joined by Justice Thomas that blasted the majority's action.

Alito pointed out three key details that gave him pause:

1. The Court had no clear jurisdiction in which to act.
2. The Court gave the order with no input from the government.
3. The Court itself declared a crisis and then gave itself the authority to act.

By Alito's judgment, that is a grave error. And he's not wrong. Turley agreed and offered an explanation into why Alito was so clearly frustrated with the Court's decision.

BREAM: He thinks the court got it wrong.

TURLEY: Yeah, what Justice Alito is objecting to is that this is becoming increasingly improvisational. I mean, you know, you've covered the supreme court for years as I have, and we rarely see this level of - or number of emergency cases going in front of the Supreme Court. And a lot of them are half-baked, in the sense they don't have the normal details, the record that you have. And the justices are expressing their frustration. 

Previously, they expressed frustration for the district courts. You know, in the case of Judge Boasberg, they said, "What is this doing in your court? This is a habeas case that belongs down south." And I think that they are showing some of that frustration. I think all parties should take heed of that. 

I think going to the Fourth Circuit decision, the Trump administration should not be alienating Chief Justice Roberts and others. They need to tone down this language a bit. 

But in the same way, a lot of these challengers are bringing these cases fast and furious to the court. And what Justice Alito is saying is, "What are we basing our decision on? These things are coming to us with virtually no record."

That is where the Supreme Court has a problem. Every single member of the nine-person body seems clearly frustrated with the bombardment of legal challenges all over the country. And even Elena Kagan can see the writing on the wall here: If liberal District Court judges act well outside of their bounds and it is tolerated, then conservative District Court judges will do the same, and the situation will only spiral.

So Alito and Thomas disagree with the majority's decision here, but all nine judges are likely on the same page as to the underlying cause—the weaponization of the judicial branch as a cudgel against the administration rather than as a means of relief against legitimate wrongdoing.

Alito believes the Court made the wrong move, but by the same token, it could be that the majority saw no other option here and that action had to be taken to pause the whole damn thing so that everyone can stop and take a breath. I think Alito is right to call out the majority for its wrong-headed solution, but I'm not terribly sure I blame the majority for feeling like it had to act. I also feel pretty sure that, outside of the Trump administration's own admitted procedural errors, the Trump administration is likely to win before the Court on the merits of its actions. So long as he follows the right process, which we know good and well John Roberts prefers over all else.