I'm not offended, I just refuse to try to explain things to anyone who becomes petulant. I don't mean that as an insult but when you start saying things like "Now are you are claiming that...your knowledge of the law is superior to that of the three justices who heard the case" the conversation is devolving and communication is breaking down.
In my honest opinion you will not be able to see things "from the other side." I've tried, you have too many biases (myself included). And while I understand your rig worker comparison, I also don't think you have to be an "expert" in order to speak with authority. I don't need a 7 yr degree to know bullshit when I hear it. Especially in the internet age where I can easily do research...hell, I can research things on my phone on the fly these days. The point being, I do think I could go tell a rig worker he is doing his job wrong. What if he sucks at his job? I see a problem, research a solution, and go tell him how to fix it.
So I won't read the opinion by the judges, because those judges aren't good at their jobs. That circuit has an 80% turnover on their opinions. If 80% of the tax returns I worked on needed correction I wouldn't expect people to trust me on tax matters.
We started the conversation on the constitutionality of the EO, after the halt was stayed you used the opinion as fact in your argument, but I don't accept their opinion as fact. Especially when I continually provided evidence that the EO itself was constitutional.
I don't consider myself a "staunch conservative" or a "Progressive liberal" or even a democrat or republican. I vote my faith first (I'm against abortion), my ideals second (I support the 2nd Amendment), and what makes sense to me third (the rising tide of fundamentally extreme Islamists needs to be halted). My ideals have changed since I've gotten older, had kids, and started paying taxes instead of getting refunds.
