While DOJ had suggested at points that the 90-day ban would start when it actually goes into effect, @marty_lederman looks to be right here.https://twitter.com/marty_lederman/status/870686491973779458 …
-
-
I am just explaining why they have not done the background work "envisioned in the ban."
-
But even on that, they could have been 90% there by doing it between 01/27 and the Hawaii injunction.
-
Wouldn't the Seattle injunction against EO1 have halted action? [I forget ~precisely~ how broad it was off-hand.]
-
No, it only touched 3(c) (the equivalent of 2(b) in the current order) and the refugee stuff
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
sorry. misunderstood
-
No prob; a lot happening!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Right. The question is whether there is a reason for the oversight, other than the assumption that the ban was never meant to be temporary
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.