No, not really.
Believe it or not, the public doesn’t want to be blown up
It’s more about the powers of the Presidency at this point
It’s only a “ban” until it becomes inconvenient
“There is no finding that present vetting standards are inadequate…”
“I’m going to not let [the president] be seen as the perpetrator here.”
“I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!”
“the majority grants itself the power to conduct an extratextual search for evidence suggesting bad faith”
Shouldn’t this be moot by now?
“If there was a new order, or if there’s a new appeal, we will be looking at it…”
Let’s just kick this can up to the Supremes, shall we?
“…the Trump administration’s new order is legal and falls under the president’s power over foreign affairs and national security.”
“…it is no longer likely that plaintiffs can succeed on their claim that the predominate purpose of EO-2 is to discriminate against Muslims”
“I think we ought to go back to the first one and go all the way.”
“The hearing in Hawaii came in response to a lawsuit filed by the state itself.”
Second time’s a charm?
They don’t make capitulations like they used to.
Poised to defend the deconstruction of the administrative state?
ACLU vows: We’ll block the new one too.
11-day warning period?
Shouldn’t have been doing that anyway
“The document you’re referencing was commentary from a single intelligence source…”
Round Two coming up.
“…green-card holders and dual citizens of the U.S. and any of those countries are exempt.”
“You don’t need significant number[s] to commit atrocities.”
“National security has to trump ego.”
“Lesson learned, on me, I should have slowed it down by a day, maybe two.”
Seems to be a bit more aggressive than Redskins, but…
“We support where the legislation is now.”
‘You need to keep better records of your crappy service’