So... I appreciate the commentary, but I'm still not sure what I know that I didn't know before, or what I should be thinking about the issue that I wasn't thinking before.

Are you saying that you don't know what you don't know? :) And, doesn't that bring back some fond memories of another time and era!?

Or the best blogs on the internet(s) - and this is certainly one of them - spur thinking about things not thought of before as well as re-thinking about things thought of before. But, the reader has to do at least some of the heaving lifting on that score...if you know what I mean and I'm sure that you do, right??

Wait a dang second, that isn't just any other lower-court federal judge, it's our judge we discussed recently regarding his decision in the Leavitt’s Country Bakery issue (mmmm, donuts), Judge Nathan Laplante who had already issued an injunction regarding the birthright citizenship issue. Another ruling against President Schlump directly from the bench; I like this judge.

Trump has proposed a radical re-reading of the plain text in the amendment that has never been applied before, ever since the amendment was ratified (in 1868). He has no precedent to rely on. He is attempting to chart new legal territory -- even though the language of the amendment is pretty much clear as day.

Imagine the wretched level of Trump's deeply entrenched ignorance in trying to amend the simple English words in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution via a freaking Executive Order.

Although by Trumpworld’s standards Chris is an avowed Marxist, I don’t see him trying to persuade anyone to think a certain way because this is a situation where he can’t. Trump being a wild card and his Six Supremes being whacko is an unprecedented combination, which means there’s just no way to predict outcomes. He’s performing more the educate function than the, er, indoctrinate function, Comrade.

It might, but it might not. This is different, but not really. The Supremes left an opening for this, so it's OK - or is it? Liberals should be encouraged, but not so fast. Etc.

Of course I'm glad a federal court jumped on to the 'class action loophole' that the recent SC decision included, to see if an injunction against the Republican administration's anti-14th amendment birthright regulation can succeed after all, pending a full hearing and decision. But as you make clear, there is absolutely no way of knowing if it has, or will have, any more force than the previous one did, because the SC is acting so arbitrarily in general.

So... I appreciate the commentary, but I'm still not sure what I know that I didn't know before, or what I should be thinking about the issue that I wasn't thinking before.