He is not arguing with a judge, he is arguing with you, or rather you are arguing with him. So far your argument seems to be "The powers that be say so, so that settles it! " Which in my mind is a pretty non compelling argument, especially for someone who is a member of a website called "Free Republic."
Where did Americans get such notions that because someone in power says so, it must therefore be so? You take a cowardly way out; Relying on a blind faith in the knowledge and wisdom of others rather than verifying the truth for yourself. A modicum of research reveals that these judges are incorrect in their understanding of the law.
I’m not sure what you mean by “there have only been a couple,” since the memorandum cites twelve decisions, and they have all ruled the same way.
A majority often means that all the fools are on the same side. Ignorance and false knowledge seemingly infuses large swaths of the modern legal system. Nonsensical results such as "citizen anchor babies" are the consequence of these ridiculous interpretations.
“He is not arguing with a judge, he is arguing with you, or rather you are arguing with him.”
__
Yes, and that’s just what I’m pointing out to him. There’s no point in arguing with me, as I don’t get to make rulings carrying legal authority, and neither does he. Judges do.
And as much as you hate the idea of respecting the decisions of “people in power,” our judicial system is based upon precisely that principle. If you don’t like what one judge says, maybe you can find another that says differently, or maybe you can get the legislature to pass different laws, or get the States to amend the Constitution.
Judicial interpretations, until overturned, are considered law. And citizens like you are perfectly within your rights to denounce them as “ridiculous interpretations.” That doesn’t change the fact that they are the law.