That's a good point. If true ('taking your word for it) this was another example of how jurisprudence has undergone a sea-change likely due to the influence of the infamous John Roberts decision re Obamacare (judicial slacktivism as opposed to judicial activism).
The Swedish model of High Court adjudication is that judges (justices) sit on their hands by refusing to act when challenges based on Constitutional issues arise in cases before them. Other Chief Justices felt it was the SCOTUS's job to act as an "overseer" holding government in check when it exceeded its authority under the Constitution.
For example, in the ACA decision, Roberts sided with four leftists in the opinion that the ACA "penalty" was not a tax (absurd on its face) because that was the ONLY rationale Roberts could come up with which allowed the SCOTUS to remain on the sidelines vis-a-vis making or breaking the Obamacare law.
The Swedish model is that judges and justices basically IGNORE constitutional issues in their rulings (such as the one of judicial authority that seems to be at issue in this case). They believe resolutions to conflicts of that sort belong in the political, not the judicial sector.
The judge who issued the Trump warrant decided that raiding a former president's home over a dispute due to what amounts to what were at best,"library books not being returned," did not exceed his authority.
Even though such a thing is unprecedented in U.S. government history, it would (I guarantee you) not be the least surprising from a Swedish court.
Welcome to the post-Constitutional Era! Where a grotesquely-crooked, cacogenic, weaselly, pissant district judge can enable harassment of a former President of the United States. He can do it legally because other weasels in federal government bureaucracies sign off (FBI director Wray and AG Garland). It's a weasel-fest because none of them are afraid to violate the U.S. Constitution anymore. Nothing bad happens to them if they do.
Robot Roberts has helped see to that.
