Missed that word the first time around. Dissent is not illegal. It seems axiomatic that those empowered to interpret the law (judges) are not engaging in anything illegal in so doing. If those in question here were doing something illegal there would be no need to suspend the writ. Legality is determined by the law, not the president, and certainly not cabinet officials with little silver bells.
Actually, I'm about 1/2 way between LAX and Santa Barbara - in Tom McClintock country. Your formatting seems fine.
While I applaud the effort of those who made an attempt to put a conservative in office here, I'd like to (and will continue to) think of it all as 'far from home.' We were recently faced with a choice between a squishy liberal with an (R) by his name and an obvious conservative a few years back... the party leadership pushed for 'someone who can win' and, naturally, we ended up sending (D)Harkin back to the US Senate.
[Gianni] Missed that word the first time around. Dissent is not illegal.
It's interesting that our friend capitan_refugio sets the trigger so high, when Lincoln himself seems to have set it a lot lower: sitting on a court case Lincoln didn't want decided, for instance, or simply asking a lot of awkward questions (as Lincoln had himself done in his 1848 "Spot Resolution" speech in the House of Representatives) like Congressman Vallandigham did -- Rep. Vallandigham being otherwise a Union man, if not necessarily a vote for abolition.
It didn't take much, as you emphasize, in the way of illegality to get you put in a federal prison -- just a few tart editorials, by the testimony adduced here.
Dissent is not illegal, but inducing soldiers to desert or draftees to evade conscription is illegal. I believe that is what Lincoln meant by his quote.