The Travel Ban: Does It "Make A Mockery Of The Supreme Court"?

Samantha Power and Betsy Fisher say yes.
   I don't understand the issues, but I'm skeptical of the ban on general principle. I argued that a temporary ban was not the moral abomination it was being made out to be so long as it was approved by SCOTUS--and, of course, it was. But it's been two years. This may be my fault, not the administrations, but I'm starting to get itchy to see a clearer and weightier defense of it than I've seen yet if this is going to be our on-going policy. There's substantial reason for the relevant countries to be on the list, but one can't help but suspect that discriminatory intent was also, to some extent, in play. This is the sort of thing about which I think Americans should be naturally skeptical; the burden of proof ought to be heavy. SCOTUS's approval is important, but not everything that's legal is something we ought to do. I agree that such a ban could be permissible even if it is skewed toward Muslim countries--and for obvious reasons. But a temporary bad is one thing; a two-years-and-counting ban is something else, I'd think.
   This stuff is maddening--among other reasons--because one just doesn't have time to really understand the issues. It tends to turn into a cartoon dispute between Trump bellowing about Muslims and the left pretending that it has no Earthly idea how anyone could possibly think that there's any notable link between Islamic countries and terrorism. Then I find myself just making a kind of judgment of taste about which cartoon is more absurd.