I don't know who shat in your oatmeal this morning baby-Tear, but I don't believe team Trump actually "wants" to go for any of the extraordinary powers the Atlantic article brings up. It's not a realistic expectation and therefore I did not regard it as being likely to be one of his objectives. Making a show of fighting, endearing himself to isolationist xenophobes and distracting all observers in the process, is a more plausible objective, and he can successfully achieve that without actually winning a court case. The article focuses on unrealistic extremes but the mundane possibilities are more concerning right now: GOP congressmen playing right into Trump's hands by letting him start a fight that he can benefit from irrespective of outcome, further eroding the legitimacy of the institutions that are supposed to check him.

And, while we're on that topic, it's interesting that you interpreted that specifically as an attack directed at you rather than at unspecified complacent moderate & centrist US commentators. I couldn't remember whether or not you were one of those who, around the time of the election, expressed a naive faith in the power of US institutions to curtail Trump—and pooh-poohed those who were more concerned—so I made sure not to refer to you specifically.

As for what the standards should be, the standard should be to not give Trump stupid fights. In this case, congress can end the shutdown, instead of playing into his hands by giving him a harmful fight that he can keep spinning unchallenged.