An Executrive Order is not a term paper

William A. Jacobson at Legal Surrection begins his comments on the 4th Circuit's opinion upholding the president's second executive order (EO2) with this quote that he appropriately calls "completely foolish":

The Second Executive Order does not include any examples of individuals from Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen committing terrorism-related offenses in the United States.

I suppose it could be argued that it is unfair to critique a judicial opinion on the basis of only one sentence (and Mr. Jacobson comments extensively on other key parts), but this statement shows a complete lack of understanding by Judge Roger Gregory, who wrote the opinion, of the most basic function of the judiciary and separation of powers.

The statement reads like a professor grading a paper: "Unsupported assertion! Cite examples!"

Does the judge not understand that the judiciary has no business second guessing the president on security matters? Has he sat in on Security Council meetings? Seen the president's daily briefings?

It is appalling that an Appeals Court judge can write something so staggeringly stupid.

There is no evidence of collusion

The hyperventilating and calls for special counsel in the investigation of collusion of the Trump campaign with Russia is wildly overwrought because there is no evidence to support it. How do I know that? Because if there was it would have been leaked long ago and we would have read about it in the New York Times. Everything, no matter how highly classified, if it's bad news for President Trump or Republicans, lands in the NYT post haste. Some government bureaucrats, who are almost all Democrats, picture themselves as part of the "resistance" and are eager to strike a blow for the cause. They know the chance of getting caught is very small and think why not?