Trump is not the first to apply a blanket ban to a country.

And the seven countries are not a “region.” Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Egypt, Ethiopia are in that same region and are not included.

Carter banned immigrants from Iran during the hostage crisis.

A Court cannot “see” religious discrimination because of prior statements a year earlier and an intent to issue a ban that is different, when the present ban obviously does not involve banning Muslims. That is (as I wrote in another context) charging Trump with thought-crime, minus anything in the current EO that has to do with said thought-crime. It is a very dangerous precedent the court would be setting.

I do agree that Trump should just rewrite it. I thought it was carelessly drafted in the first place.

The issue, however, is that Trump is the first to apply a blanket ban to everyone from a specific country [or region]. So the Ninth Circuit looked at that, as well as things that Trump said when he was campaigning and they read that as a ‘Muslim ban’ not just a ban of people from a particular region. Therefore, they saw religious discrimination. So they relied more on the First and Fourteenth Amendments than on the provision of the 1952 Act.

Therefore, the easy fix would be for Trump [and his team] to rewrite the order in a way that the courts will accept. I’m sure they are doing that.

Much of the coverage here has been with this one EO (how can it not be? – one of the consequences), so there isn’t anywhere to give a heads up on this.

One of the most anticipated promises has been tax reform.

Here is an article with some details on how that is shaping up. Looks good!
http://www.ozy.com/pov/the-trump-tax-cut-how-much-how-soon-how-certain/75641

Treating capital investment as an expense, alone, can spur a large increase in business investment (i.e. instead of taxes, that money goes to things that may provide some jobs one way or another).

Expect a lot of complaints on the left about how this benefits the rich and corporations.

But this is just the start, as while we may use the term “activist judges”, the reality is that any court can only hear cases that come before it, and all the initiative for action is on the side of Mr. Trump and the Congress.

Lots of things can be done:
1. Other executive orders (just with a little fine-tuning)
2. Changes to current immigration law passed by Congress
3. Congress choosing not to appropriate any money for refugee programs, or else limiting it (power of the purse)
4. Appointing other judges to the Supreme and appellate courts (Ginsburg is 83, Kennedy is 80, and Breyer is 78)
5. Congress can split up the 9th Circuit, and create new circuits (which is long overdue)
6. Judicial review is not an issue if Congress passes a law restricting the jurisdiction of the courts (jurisdiction stripping)
7. Public speeches by President Trump explaining his policies and why he is right (the bully pulpit)
8. External events

Other instances of terrorism in the U.S. or Europe will sway public opinion in favor of restricting immigration. And the latest news from Germany is that Chancellor Merkel is considering paying refugees to return to their home countries.

No, unless what we want is to expand beyond this Overton Window on Constitutional boundaries wrt executive powers, and make it real.

When the next dem POTUS has their turn at bat, we’d love having done that even more than the dems love having killed the fillibuster for judicial appointments.

As mentioned in comments above, there are plenty of avenues for the POTUS to pursue.

First, is to reconsider this whole EO. I doubt trump could let go of using an EO altogether, given the challenge he must feel personally, and the need to do something splashy.

But, if he does, maybe his team can craft a much stronger and more sound one, using “extreme vetting” by his staff across all affected functions, and then prepare for a competent rollout.

IOW, do it right the first second time.