1: That wasn't a travel ban
2: There was an actual event that inspired that inspired the crackdown. Trump's is essentially giving him (or Bannon) 90 days to craft policy that he should have had planned months ago.
3: Two wrongs don't make a right

PS for Chula: the 9th circuit court has more overruled verdicts than any of the other circuits, I wouldn't rejoice yet.

Because it wasn't a ban. Stop listening listening to those trying to defend Trump's ban by citing Obama.

Big differences between Trump's immigration ban, Obama's 2011 policy - Business Insider

If anything what Trump's trying to do is unnecessary based on the work Obama did in 2011 to strengthen the policies for screening and immigration. Name a single terrorist act that took place here in the US from any of the seven countries that Trumps trying to ban. He needs to start focusing on domestic terrorism.

I love how so many people just despise every word that comes out of Obama's mouth...unless it has any kind of parallels to things Trump has said because dumb liberals!

Someone made a case that the Supreme Court will also deny his appeal because his tone so far towards the courts and judges - and how they need to assert their control now before he runs amuck.

If that informs their reasoning I hope that all members of the SCOTUS are stripped of their titles. I heard a great quote from Gorsuch on the subject: "A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge." Their decisions should be made based on law, not the fact that Trump was a little mean to them. I'd be totally ****ed if being a meanie was unconstitutional.

I didn't word it very well. A lawyer on TV just made the point much more clearer. What they might do is read the decision and agree with the areas that basically say that Trump is trying usurp the court's opinions based on The Constitution as well as already being do disrespectful to the US judicial system.

What was Trump implying when he referred to the Washington justice as a "so called judge"? Saying something like that so publically can have the same affect on his base like constantly saying "fake news" does.

A president is not suppose to seed doubt in the American people about the soundness of our judicial process just because he's throwing another hissy fit.

It's not ideal that he does that, correct. But it is legal and therefore should not have a bearing in their decision.

How many times over the course of something this complex will a Justice come to a fork in the road where he/she really could go either way and stay within the confines of the law? I've seen it a number of times the last 2 years where our lawyers were absolutely convinced we were gonna win a point only to see the judge go the other way. And visa versa.

So a Justice needs to make a decision and either way would be acceptable to a final decision. Under the current circumstances it might help them decide.

If you ask a judge why he ruled a certain way the answer will always be "because I did - read the ruling".

Website dedicated to spelling out all of the reasons why Donald Trump is the most fit president ever.

https://whytrumpisgreat.com/

:laughing:

"Going either way" literally breaks the confines of the law if a grudge or lack thereof determines the outcome of a case..

If the judge needs "help" in the form of a personal grudge to come to a conclusion, then I believe that they are not fit to be a judge.

Ya know, I really doubt that you tested this idea out.