> Lot of weasel words in there, from 'as it was understood by the people who wrote it' (so your originalist doctrine takes precedence over SCOTUS decisions?) “

> Lot of weasel words in there, from 'as it was understood by the people who wrote it' (so your originalist doctrine takes precedence over SCOTUS decisions?) “Emanations from penumbras” are “weasel words.” I’m just talking about what the document means. If there’s contrary Supreme Court precedent, the only way to get it overturned is to take action based on an aggressive legal position and wait to get sued. That’s just how the executive (and impact litigation generally) works. > to quoting Breyer's allowing deployed troops to stay put as if that wasn't to provide time for the administration to appeal The portion I quoted was not describing some temporary situation pending the appeal. It first sentence says: “ Finally, the Court’s injunctive relief in this case is narrowly tailored to address Defendants’ statutory violations.” The following portions are describing what the court views as inside the scope of the statute. And you can criticize the conduct as much as you want, but it’s wrong to say the National Guard was “illegally deployed.” The deployment was legal and the purpose of deploying to protect federal property was legal, according to Judge Breyer. The ruling was that the troops were engaged in conduct outside the scope of the legal deployment. Even if that ruling holds up, which is unlikely, that doesn’t support the assertion that the deployment itself was illegal.