@Frederick:
@pppucci:
I think Frederick oversimplifies the dynamics of a supreme court case. While each justice has a dominant ideology, they rightly should consider each case on its merits and it would be premature to predict how any would vote in any particular case. A big hint ill come as to how they rule on the motion to put the ban into effect until they rule on the merits. And remember, they may decide not to hear the case at all, which would leave the lower court orders in place, or may wait until the lower courts rule on the merits.
BTW, all you Trump supporters out there, answer me this: the original Executive order placed a temporary 120 day hold on immigration from 7 countries while stronger vetting measures could be developed. More than 120 days have passed since then. Where are the stronger vetting measures? He was just trying to fulfill a campaign promise.
Ideally, all the justices should base each case on it's own merit.. but unfortunately, that is not the way it works. Both parties are guilty of "going with the pack" but the democraps are far more guilty of it. Democraps RARELY split from the pack and vote their own conscience. That goes for congress as well.
The original executive order indefinitely barred Syrian refugees from entering the United States, suspended all refugee admissions for 120 days and blocked citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries, refugees or otherwise, from entering the United States for 90 days: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. However, that order was blocked. He revised the order, and the revised order also got blocked. Until the blocks are cleared, nothing can be done. I don't think you will be seeing a whole lot more blocks, because the moonbats are retreating back into their caves.
So immigration policy cannot be reviewed until the travel ban is in place? That makes no sense at all.
