[inquest]

I don't care if you consider this "substantive" or not, but there's no legal justification for your concluding that the President's powers of foreign surveillance are any more sacred under the "Separation of Powers doctrine" than his powers of domestic law enforcement.

I tried several times to get you to address that point, but you sidestepped it or equivocated each time. That itself speaks volumes.

[Boot Hill]

inquest:   "there's no legal justification for your concluding that the President's powers of foreign surveillance are any more sacred under the Separation of Powers doctrine than his powers of domestic law enforcement."

One more time, I am not the author of those "conclusions" you object to, they are the conclusions of multiple appellate courts. And your unsupported opinion that those courts had "no legal justification" for making those conclusions, can not be taken seriously.