One possible outcome of Trump’s travel ban:
The order is defeated specifically because the Republican party would not seat a 9th justice on the Supreme Court last year.
A 4-4 tie could be the end of the matter.
I would be overwhelmed with schadenfreude at such a clear demonstration of poetic justice.
I was reading “Courts and Censorship” by Hans A. Linde.
He concludes: “When a constitutional prohibition is addressed to lawmakers, as the first amendment is, the role that it assigns to courts is the censorship of laws, not participation in government censorship of private expression. This, I suggest, is not an inappropriate relation between courts and censorship.”
What this means to me is that the courts can take an expression of law and cut out the offending part of the law, while it should not take an expression of ideas, speech or writing and cut out the offending part of the expression.
That’s just so poetic to me. Perhaps the first clause is a way to clarify the definition of judicial restraint.
Original image: Blind Justice 3. By Marc Treble [Image license]
 Linde, H. (1981). Courts and Censorship. Minnesota Law Review 66(1), 171-208.