Judge Robart probed a Justice Department lawyer on the "litany of harms” suffered by Washington state’s universities, and also questioned the administration's use of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States as a justification for the ban.

Robart said no attacks had been carried out on U.S. soil by individuals from the seven countries affected by the travel ban since that assault. For Trump’s order to be constitutional, Robart said, it had to be “based in fact, as opposed to fiction.” 

this is actually a pretty ballsy ruling, though, that is likely to get dissected over the next few days. again, i'm in canada, but for a judge to interpret the case this deeply would be considered "activist", even by liberals. i don't know what the american precedents are, but this is probably stretching them - to put it lightly.

but, the judge might not argue with me, either. he might be fully transparent in stating that his ruling is activist and political. and, while you might agree with him, you should be uneasy with the scenario - even if you don't blame him.

i posted the canadian test. what it needs to do is determine a rational connection between what the executive branch orders and the policy put in place. it sounds like that's what he's doing, here. but, it can't question whether the orders of the executive branch are justified, as that would be assuming the role of the executive branch and breaking the separation of powers.

as mentioned, desperate situations call for desperate actions. and, i might argue that you'd have to be kind of clueless to reject critical legal theory in 2017. but, fighting alternative facts with politicized rulings is opening up somewhat of a pandora's box that could end pretty brutally...

it's easier to talk about slippery slopes from a distance than to actually react, though. there's probably not an ideal ruling, here.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-idUSKBN15I1CM