>>>In the meantime, as fewer and fewer call it a "Muslim ban", there are lawsuits piling up against the travel ban.
>
>Yes. And there is precedent: when previous presidents imposed bans on Cuba and elsewhere for a lot longer than 90 days for national security reasons, the courts declared themselves impotent as that is a POTUS prerogative. Will be interesting to see whether the current court holds itself better equipped than a president who has access to classified material and advice, to make such decisions. The piling-on by Apple et al frankly seems absurd since after 90 days, whatever handful of their current and future stellar employees are still in the affected nations will be welcomed back, along with all the others who "love America" to paraphrase Trump. With so few involved, it would be easy to seek special dispensation if Apple will collapse unless the employee is allowed back in immediately. Conflating it into something about the benefits of all immigration is a great straw man, but won't be tolerated in a higher court. Good luck convincing them that short-term inconvenience for at most a handful of employees AFAICS, which is what this is about in real life AND already would have concluded by the time the Supreme Court gets to it, has more weight than national security for everybody in the US.

Can't speculate further. I'd say that we'd have to wait and see what those more competent than me decide on the merits.


>>>I just realized that you updated your post. I have not read the WaPo story, but if Kellyann is right, then I'm glad that her criticism works and that they retracted it.
>
>Not Kellyann, John Kelly who heads Homeland Security said the story about him was completely wrong, if not made up by the reporter. Ouch. Certainly it used to be expected practice to seek comment before relying on anonymous sources to slate somebody, assuming the sources even existed.

Yup. My mistake for misreading the name, though I am pretty sure that the meaning of my comment does not change if you replace one name with the other.

>
>
The WaPo fake news is just the latest example why you can call it "bias" if you like. My attitude: MSM me once, shame on you. MSM me twice, shame on me.

IMO, the MSM moniker is dangerous. Some took it further and now just call it "the media", and then subject it to rules inferred from exceptions like the one you mention above.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secundum_quid
*
.