Well I am a lawyer, and so are appellate court justices! In fact, that’s basically my concern. Instead of relying on common sense, the Seventh Circuit will take a hyper technical view. Trials courts’ factual findings do get deference, but SCOTUS recently ruled that courts should give presidents more

I’m not saying it’s right, I’m saying I’m worried that’s what’s going to happen. Appellate courts love to reverse controversial cases on standard of review issues, and if the Government gets a trump curious panel, the opinion will write itself. No matter how bonkers that may be

Uh oh. By saying it was a “credibility determination,” I worry that the Seventh Circuit will reverse for “second guessing” the president instead of giving him appropriate deference.

The statute uses the term rebellion, the court needs to determine the meaning of that word to uphold and enforce the law. It’s standard statutory interpretation.

So you could invade first and then use that invasion as legal justification. Cool. Cool.

It’s not part of our trade negotiations except for the country that is our largest purchaser of soy beans…

Isn’t What meets the threshold of the statutory definition of “rebellion” a legal question answered de novo?

“Judge, I have no idea what’s in the pleadings I’m arguing today.”

Can give specific answers to what the guard is going to do even though the guard is already there…