Why have court cases if decisions mean whatever AG says they mean

[Inland]

What a humpty dumpty moment when Gonzales brings up the opinion that says "We take it for granted that the president has inherent authority, and assuming that is so....." as precedent for authority.

When a court ASSUMES something is true for purposes of argument, it doesn't reach a decision on the something. It assumes it for the sake of DISPOSING of an argument, it's "assuming arguendo". As with all decisions, you know the next sentence is, "the president STILL loses".

And why would ANYONE respect ANYONE who finds the state of law in an assumption or taking something for granted?

The AG knows this. What a lying sack of shit. Why bother to have court opinions if people just lie their asses off? Must every opinion now be drafted so that an evil admin can't misrepresent it, in the same way every statute on national security isn't cited years later for a grant of authority to spy?

[kurth]

1. Excellent point

It's mind boggling. DISGUSTING.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. True. What we have here is a Chimperial Magistrate, do we not?