Because it isn't actually meant to be temporary. Why haven't they done the work envisioned in the ban already? They've had the time.
-
-
Replying to @williamsgoldman @DLind and
Ding ding ding. Doesn't this totally undercut their argument that this was a necessary temporary pause to give them time to analyze?
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @jpanzer @williamsgoldman and
Where's the analysis? (Is what SCOTUS should ask.)
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @jpanzer @williamsgoldman and
There is an injunction (in Hawaii v. Trump) of all of Sections 2 and 6 of the executive order. Here is 2a/b, which is enjoined:pic.twitter.com/os2w0X2xhs
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chrisgeidner @jpanzer and
I discuss this in the post--it doesn't change the end date.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @marty_lederman @jpanzer and
Yes, no one is debating that, Marty.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner @marty_lederman and
I am just explaining why they have not done the background work "envisioned in the ban."
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chrisgeidner @jpanzer and
But even on that, they could have been 90% there by doing it between 01/27 and the Hawaii injunction.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @marty_lederman @jpanzer and
Wouldn't the Seattle injunction against EO1 have halted action? [I forget ~precisely~ how broad it was off-hand.]
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner @marty_lederman and
No, it only touched 3(c) (the equivalent of 2(b) in the current order) and the refugee stuff
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
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.