So, why doesn't some federal judge somewhere issue an injunction against Donald Trump from further attacks against Syria?
He could use several justifications; further attacks would violate the War Powers Clause, as a Muslim majority nation, attacking Syria is prima facie discriminatory against said Muslims and disparately impacts them.
Why not? The injunctions by federal judges against the travel ban have as much legal justification.
Oh, but liberals like the attacks on Syria and the travel bans, not so much.
Ryan Kennedy has been writing us letter from Alaska for at least eleven years.
James Fulford writes: This has actually been tried during the Vietnam War, etc.—I believe it was one of the crazier ideas of the late Justice William O. Douglas, among others—but it was such an obvious Constitutional non-starter that other Judges firmly overruled it, and Presidents ignored it.
Trump would ignore a circuit Judge who tried to stop him from exercising his prerogatives as Commander in Chief—he should do the same thing with the recent Muslim immigration rulings.