[Principled]

posters who say “winning” are pointing to the ruling’s portion that allows most of the ban to stay in place _until_ they hear the case.

imo not a full win until we see just what all they’re allowing. By all accounts, it’s “mostly” going to stay in place.

i’m still looking into it

[plain talk]

Thanks. That helps.

[calenel]

What I see is that the temporary ban - 90 days, right? - is mostly back in effect until the Court can review it in October, at the earliest, at which point it will have expired, anyway. Since this is from the SCOTUS, no lower court now can do anything about it. Sounds like a de facto ruling in President Trump's favor, with the exception of those that can prove a relationship to someone already here, and I think there are precedents for that having to do with Cold War era refugee policies where left-behinds could be used against refugees that had already made it out.

Proving that a relationship exists with someone here is going to be difficult for those without documentation, which was the primary obstacle to vetting them in the first place, ergo, vetting is now 'mandatory' in this form at least.

So, instead of our country being overrun by potential terrorists at the whim of progressives in the judicial system, we now have a de facto travel ban and mandatory vetting.

That's how I'm reading this, anyway.