> If you consider the establishment clause
and the concept of judicial review of the
actions of Congress and the President to
be nonsense,

I don't, and I never so claimed.

You misrepresented what I wrote to set up
a false straw man in order to knock it
down.

Just read again what the heck I wrote.

But just for you, again, once again, over
again, yet again, one more time,
I did claim, e.g., that saying that the
establishment clause on "free exercise" of
a religion basically forces the US to
admit a Muslim is nonsense.

Or clearly the context of the US
Constitution is people inside the US,
mostly US citizens. That some Muslim
alien in Yemen wants to immigrate is
irrelevant.

For judicial review, sure, but in this
case 1182 is so crystal clear that
supporting the TRO against the EO
is nonsense.

Or, 1182 says that the POTUS has
essentially unlimited powers to keep US
aliens out of the US. That an EO to keep
out US alien Muslims in Yemen might deny a
US university a speaker from Yemen,
disappoint a US woman expecting to marry a
man from Yemen, hurt some US burka
clothing business due to fewer Muslim
customers in the US are all just
irrelevant; no way did the founding
fathers or the authors of 1182 think of
such distant side effects; issuing a TRO
against such an EO is nonsense.

Or the university, the woman, and the
owner of the burka clothing business
needed to think ahead that they were
counting on US aliens outside the US being
able to enter the US, and there was no
such guarantee.

Again, once again, over again, yet again,
one more time, if consider such obscure
indirect effects, side effects, secondary,
tertiary, ..., effects, then no action on
anything will be possible.

E.g., I could ask for a TRO to keep Trump
from using Air Force One because the
amount of jet fuel it burns will tend to
raise the price of gasoline for me and,
thus, reduce what I can buy for myself.
Gee, I should file a class action with
plaintiffs all over the country! Yup,
that would be such an indirect effect.
But such a TRO would be nonsense.

I better not come up with more such
examples or the 9th Circuit will be
supporting such TROs.

Law 1182 is just crystal clear. Making
that law look complicated -- e.g., that
some university may have to cancel a
lecture from a speaker who can't enter the
US -- is just being really mixed up
between the ears.

Again, the believable explanation is that
those two courts out west just wanted to
stick it to Trump, to show that the
Judicial branch could, anytime it wanted
to, so tie up Trump in legal cases that he
couldn't even have a sandwich for lunch.

That, from what I wrote you wrote

> If you consider the establishment clause
and the concept of judicial review of the
actions of Congress and the President to
be nonsense,

shows that you were deliberately
misreading what I wrote. Why? Basically
you hate Trump and want to fight with me.
I'm being clear, rational, and objective,
and you are just flailing away in a
political fight.

Why do you hate Trump? A lot of people
do. Why? The Hillary campaign spent
about $1 billion and the MSM went along
passing out just dirty, but unsupported
and totally false, propaganda about Trump,
and a lot of people believed a lot of it.

The people had either to (A) believe some
of the propaganda or (B) treat as sewage
to be flushed nearly everything they heard
from the Hillary campaign and the MSM.
Case (B) required flushing so much that it
was scary; so people believed (A).

The Jefferson remarks show that we should
accept that at times nearly everything
from the MSM can be just sewage.

A lot of people really swallowed that
Hillary-MSM propaganda, were so convinced
that after Trump won they wanted to
scream, throw things, leave the US, etc.

They really, really believed that
propaganda.

All such people have to do is just review
what objections they have with Trump and,
for each, find some solid evidence. At
the end of that review, they will have
discovered that they have essentially no
evidence at all for anything significantly
wrong with Trump.

E.g., in this thread, on the claim that
Trump is a racist, I gave the URL of the
story on his efforts at Palm Beach. I got
an answer back that there is plenty of
evidence that Trump is racist. I asked
for some such evidence, and so far I've
received none. No wonder: I paid fairly
close attention to the election, and I saw
no such evidence at all solid.

Other times on this thread I asked for
evidence of something bad about Trump and
didn't get any.

In a sense, the TRO on the EO is really
good news: If that is the strongest shots
the Trump enemies can fire, then Trump
must be squeaky clean.