02-10-2017, 10:15 AM
It should be noted that the scope of the ruling from the 9th is extremely narrow. Essentially, the case wasn't about the constitutionality of the ban itself, it was about the restraining order put in place by the district court. the DoJ was trying to argue the EO was not reviewable by the judiciary and that it was necessary for for national security. Their claim of it being not reviewable was seen as unprecedented (and quite frankly, I find that claim to be the most concerning thing to come from the Trump WH so far) and that they did not make a decent case that the restraining order impacted national security to the degree the DoJ was claiming.
The fight over the legality of the order itself is yet to come.
The fight over the legality of the order itself is yet to come.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
