[TheRealThing]

^^ There would have been no exchange had activist judges not usurped the power of the executive by using the court to advance their own political agendas. The President has given no indication that he is a racist or racially biased against any nationality. Democrats made that charge during his campaign and media and Dems continue to push that falsehood to this day. But there is not a scintilla of evidence to support a finding where the President's supposed biases are used against him. That's been an ongoing political argument, not a legal argument.

Roberts knows his extended team is comprised of a bunch of loons who do not feel particularly beholden to the law as written, and he should not have defended some podunk judge that felt compelled to personally challenge the President of the United States, and force the millions of people whom find themselves beset by invaders from the south, to endure even more hardship.

You obsess over polishing up your point of view, which I believe is influenced by your desire to see Trump put in the place you'd like to see him, while ignoring the reality of the situation. The US Constitution vests the power of immigration control in the person of the President. Illegal immigration has escalated from singles and small groups to columns numbering in the thousands. There's no defending that sort of thing and I don't believe for one second that Scalia would have defended any judge engaged in challenging the Constitutional powers of the Presidency.