Yes, for what it's worth. Courts are not beholden to correct application of precedent or "accuracy." No doubt there are sentences in the law, here and there, that when put in isolation will reach the opposite conclusion. Courts will choose whichever language fits the predetermined outcome.
It’s a good point you make about courts.
The chances that the Mark Levin argument about the meaning of “jurisdiction” will prevail in any currently constituted US Federal court are zero. This is a fact, really behind dispute.
Either the Constitution is amended to correct this error, or the current situation will go on. That’s all there is to it.
Since the illegals damage the States and their budgets more than anything else, getting 38 states to ratify a simple amendment should be simple. Sending such an amendment TO the States for ratification is far from simple, however, since the Cheap Labor Express holds strong majorities in both Houses of Congress.
...Courts are not beholden to correct application of precedent or “accuracy.”...
Judges, when making decisions will quite often tell their clerk to write the decision, and instruct them to find a way bending and stretching precedent and controlling law, and do it in such a way that what is a laughable ruling actually comes across as plausible.
This country is being brought down by judges in our courts interpreting the law as it suits them.