Granting the Trump administration “extraordinary relief” to continue deporting people is absolutely a decision. You can say “we didn’t rule on that issue” a hundred times in a row if it makes you feel better, but if you go out of your way to make sure the government can continue to exercise power under an absurd legal justification, you’re making a very explicit choice.
It’s this kind of legal storytelling, by which you pretend you didn’t authorize something, while actually taking actions that ensure it’s authorized in practice, that is the worst enemy of the rule of law.
I have this "fear" of being in a situation where a judge has to form judgments about code i wrote, even when relying on an "expert".
For the same reason that i believe a situation like that could play out, i don't think i should judge a judges understanding of, dedication to work through, and knowledge about– the laws.
I actually studied law for a few years. And i am baffled by the confidence of laymen about court rulings. It's almost like a client explaining to me how easy it is to fix this small bug.
It’s this kind of legal storytelling, by which you pretend you didn’t authorize something, while actually taking actions that ensure it’s authorized in practice, that is the worst enemy of the rule of law.