that is correct Yes, not just anyone can be considered an expert. I know a plumber who is an expert at plumbing but he'd make a lousy expert on foreign policy. I listen to the experts whose opinions I have respect for and for those with a reputation for their expertise. That's funny. You pretend to be a legal expert and then you called me "cornered" when I refuse to engage you in your little fantasy about being a legal eagle. Your side has proven time after time that their legal theories are suspect at best.
In the case of Affirmative Action, which I assume is the ruling your referencing, I do agree with the courts decision. There are, however, more than just 9 lawyers in this country, so expert opinion can come from outside that group when it comes to legal opinions.
Oh so there can be experts that disagree with each other? Convenient you would use outside “opinions” when I references previous Supreme Court rulings. So selective it is. It would be much easier if your opinions were consistent across topics with regards to when you pick and choose who to listen to. However, the major issue with your process is your brain is en-active and when you are stumped, you then must listen to your “selective” experts; who btw are just as political as the rest. The reason I default to the Supreme Court is because they, over time, haven proven to be the meat political. Thus, since you only rely on experts, nothing you have ever posted “Trumps” my questions to you. To this day you refuse to tell me where the Supreme Court was wrong on their statements about a presidents authority on classified material.
Of course there can be dissent among experts but what makes Trump's case so interesting is how people who are usually on opposing sides of these arguments are all in agreement when it comes to the documents case. Bill Barr actually agrees with Merrick Garland. Both of them are experts on the law. They both served as Attorney General of the United States. You used to think Bill Barr was the greatest thing in the world when he was supporting Trump but now you say otherwise. until they become law they are known as opinions You mean if I just stuck to the Trump party line like you do? No thanks...
I don’t think you know how Supreme Court opinions work with regards to suits. They are “the” final opinion on said matters.
Deflection noted. Any time you have to parrot a party line tune you don’t really have an argument. This is a policy dispute. Quite literally.
yes that is their job to be the final say on disputed matters, kind of like all those election 2020 cases that they smacked down or like when they smacked down the Independent State Legislature Theory this week regarding the ability of state legislatures to go against the will of their voters and send alternate electors. That's not even to mention all the other 60 something cases that were smacked down by lower courts then.
Ok then so you agree with their ruling on the matter of presidential authority on classified materials being absolute. See, that wasn’t so hard.
No I do not. You are taking it out of context, as I have said several times. Bill Barr agrees with me. Merrick Garland agrees with me. Many others do as well. Can you point to a legal expert who agrees with your position?
Bill bar agrees with you? He called you? Nice. and yes. I can point to a legal expert. The supreme court I quoted….. They said it verbatim. Want to read it again? They didn’t say the president had authority some times. A few times. Or only in certain situations. They said it was constitutionally granted. Supreme.
