That’s like saying we shouldn’t hold a drunk driver accountable for his driving because we all had a beer sometimes.

The myth of the Supreme Court having any check on executive power was disproven by the "switch in time to save 9", where Owen Roberts agreed to stop obstructing The New Deal so FDR wouldn't implement court-packing and term limits. That was almost 90 years ago.

At the same scope and scale?

Can you see a problem here, a failure of the intended system of checks and balances?

Biden signed about 150 executive orders across his term.

Guess how many trump has done since just last year...

Nobody cares if an admin "rules via executive order". What we care about is whether they rule according to the law. That is, for example: the administration is free to fire whoever it wants from the civil service as long as it follows the laws about how and when this is done. This administration, however, has repeatedly fired federal employees without following the law.

In more than 85% of cases brought against the administration, lower courts have ruled that the administration has broken the law.

So, you can decide if you think SCOTUS overruling those decisions is an indication of a problem, or justice winning out.

I also don't care when an administration says "We will find a way to ...." - I care about whether they do so, and do so in accordance with the law. The Biden administration followed SCOTUS rulings on its orders, and AFAIK, did not find workarounds for any of the things you mention.

[dead]

And Obama did this. See his famous pen and phone quote:

"We are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we're providing Americans the kind of help that they need. I've got a pen, and I've got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.."