For John, BLUF: . Nothing to see here; just move along.
".... when, after consulting with three members of his cabinet, he placed a brief pause on entry from six countries that present heightened risks of terrorism… "If SCOTUS reverses the Ninth and Fourth Circuit Courts, what is the consequence, aside from allowing the implementation of the immigration ban?“The court did not dispute that the president acted at the height of his powers in instituting” the executive order’s “temporary pause on entry by nationals from certain countries that sponsor or shelter terrorism,” the brief said. The brief also said the order’s “text and operation are religion-neutral.”…Quotes from Donald Trump's petition to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, in the NYT article "Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Revive Travel Ban."
“This order has been the subject of passionate political debate,” the brief said. “But whatever one’s views, the precedent set by this case for the judiciary’s proper role in reviewing the president’s national security and immigration authority will transcend this debate, this order, and this constitutional moment. Precisely in cases that spark such intense feelings, it is all the more critical to adhere to foundational legal rules,” the brief said.....
- Will the litigations go away, or do we litigate until there is a Democrat in the White House?
- Does everyone go back to where they were and the complaining stops, or at least quiets down?
- Does Congress give us a long term change in immigration policy?
- Do we get over the accusations of racism and get back to cooperating?
- Will future Presidents find themselves shackled by their campaign (or other) rhetoric?
- Will there be any blowback if there is a significant terror attack tied to immigrants?
- Will Congress rewrite the current laws authorizing the President to limit immigration for national security?
- Will there be lawsuits against the Federal Government for not providing security to the People?
Regards — Cliff