Following the clear words of the Constitution is not a novel argument. We have judges for a reason, whenever there is an apparent conflict within the law they should resolve it. As I said due process is required. The sanctity of injunctions are not. There is no inventing of a new right. It is the functioning of the government that must be adjusted to fit the law. That includes the judiciary. They were given a new jurisdiction. TADA. They have to be judges. TADA. They are supposed to use blindfolds and scales. TADA. The Constitution outweighs their damned procedures. TADA. They failed to uphold the Constitution. BRRRRAAAP.
Fine, but "injunction" isn't one of those words. Even worse for you, the Constitution doesn't specify what "due process" is - it leaves it to Congress to define it, and frankly if they want to define "due process" as the dunking test to see if she floats, so be it. So how about, rather than finding injunctive relief emanating from some penumbra somewhere, we get Congress to do its damn job? You know, it's just crazy enough to work...