gnome wrote:Cynically, everything's political, but they have to cite some legal justification, don't they?
They can claim they are doing that but as they are overturned, their justification did not prove legal.
The Hawai'i judge tried to argue that this was "discriminatory," hence "violates the Amendments!" Appeals told him to stuff it. It, and others, are before SCOTUS, and the fact they issued an injunction in favor the the Administration, does not portent too well for those who share the view of the Hawai'ian [Stop that.--Ed.] judge.
But then, SCOTUS can do what they will: "we're not final because we're infallible, we're infallible because we're final."