[faucetman]

“I don’t think agreeing to review the lower court decisions equates to reversing the injunctions and “reinstating” the executive order.”

Me either. or is it neither?

Headline is FAKE headline. It may very well become true, but it isn’t yet.

Rehang the balloons and pick up the confetti. Save for later.

[faucetman]

Okay, I stand corrected. I was basing what I said based on the posted Breitbart article.

“WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to let President Trump’s immigration travel ban go into effect for some travelers, reversing the actions of lower federal courts that had put the controversial policy completely on hold.”

So a PARTIAL correction. Not really much of a victory, for now.

“The court is allowing the ban to go into effect for foreign nationals who lack any “bona fide relationship with any person or entity in the United States.” The court, in an unsigned opinion, left the travel ban against citizens of six majority-Muslim on hold as applied to non-citizens with relationships with persons or entities in the United States, which includes most of the plaintiffs in both cases.”

“.....left the travel ban against citizens of six majority-Muslim on hold ...... which includes most of the plaintiffs in both cases.”

Not exactly “WINNING” is it?

[grania]

It's a victory in that the administration gets a "time out" to review its procedures. It's more than 90 days until October and it's over the summer and early autumn. I'd think it's a victory to be able to put limits on who arrives here this summer. Once the review is completed, the Trump administration can write a plan that is based on its investigations.

From what we've heard so far, it seems like a reasonable approach. It's important that one Obama-appointee judge in Hawaii didn't get to over-rule the President of the United States.

[central_va]

RTFA. The silly unconstitutional injunction was vacated!