Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

In breaking news, the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear the legality and constitutionality of Trump's travel ban. Supreme Court revives Trump travel ban orderThis is a temporary measure until the Supreme Court actually hears and rules on the case, but my understanding is that decisions about injunctions often give a sense about how a court will eventually rule.Edited by Chiroptera, : Typo in title.

My analysis is a bit different. A preliminary injunction is supposed to be issued upon a balancing of harms coupled with the likelihood of success. It is important to note that the court upheld the portion of the ban that clearly affected folks who had a claim to due process under the constitution. I think that validates the argument that those folks do have a constitutional right to due process.With regard to the rest of the folks for whom the 120-day delay applied to, namely folks not yet under the jurisdiction of the court and not closely related to those folks, the court questioned whether or not that provision was moot, given that the time the administration wanted to study immigration was now over and presumably the administration can implement the real plan.Under the Supreme Court's rulling, those folks simply have to wait a relatively brief time. So for establishing the balance of harms before the Court hears the case, those folks are not suffering much harm by a brief wait until the hearing.I think there is very little justification for crowing about the outcome as Trump is now doing. Further, the Court has not tipped its hand about what it might do. The option is open to do just about anything.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

From the New York Times