Federal Judge upholds travel ban

[Sparko]

http://www.hannity.com/articles/elec...s-in-15678396/

[shunyadragon]

Of course, the decision will be made in higher courts, especially when there are conflicting rulings in lower federal courts.

[One Bad Pig]

The conflict is what makes it more likely that the Supreme Court will weigh in.

[rogue06]

The conflict is what makes it more likely that the Supreme Court will weigh in.

As Alan Dershowitz (who while opposing the travel restrictions has said they are constitutional) has noted, considering their temporariness it might already be a moot issue before it ever comes before the SCOTUS.

[One Bad Pig]

As Alan Dershowitz (who while opposing the travel restrictions has said they are constitutional) has noted, considering their temporariness it might already be a moot issue before it ever comes before the SCOTUS.

Is their temporariness set from the date of the signature or the date they go into effect?

[Raphael]

Is their temporariness set from the date of the signature or the date they go into effect?

From what I gather the temporariness is based on the "putting in place better vetting procedures" which was expected to take X months (I think it was 3 months). Work on those improving vetting procedures should be halted by the legal arguments over the ban, so by the time the court decides, I would expect the ban to be irrelevant.

[Mountain Man]

I can't see how there's any choice but to uphold the travel ban since the first judge essentially said, "It's a legal order, but I think the President acted with incorrect intent, so I'm ruling against it," which is a really stupid decision.