The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled parts of President Trump’s travel ban were indeed constitutional, over-turning many lower courts. The justices have allowed a water-downed version to stand and plan to revisit the issue in the fall.

President Trump said the decision was a “clear victory” and tweeted:

“Very grateful for the 9-O decision from the U. S. Supreme Court. We must keep America SAFE!”

So that issue is now settled for the time being, or is it? The court added three words to the travel ban that now have people trying to understand exactly who is banned. People from the six majority-Muslim nations who can demonstrate a “bona fide relationship” with a “person or entity” will not be effected and allowed to enter.

So what is a bona fide relationship? The justices cited some examples including visiting relatives in the United States, attending a university or taking a job offer. That seems to leave a lot of wiggle room for interpretation.

Is having ties to a non-profit organization assisting refugees a “bona fide relationship”? Who is responsible to verify if they have a relative living in the U.S. or are enrolled in a university?

It seems, once again, Washington provides the kind of clarity only lawyers understand and bill for.

In the wake of Donald Trump’s decision to abandon the Paris climate agreement, there’s been increased controversy over CEO participation in the president’s business council.

Several key members have decided not to participate in the council because of the decision to back out of the agreement, but what exactly does the council do to begin with?

John Kenneth Galbraith, who wrote about Herbert Hoover’s meetings with top business leaders in the wake of the stock market crash in his book “The Great Crash of 1929” made an interesting point about meetings that are called without a real purpose …

“Yet to suppose that President Hoover was engaged only in organizing further reassurance is to do him a serious injustice. He was also conducting one of the oldest, most important — and, unhappily, one of the least understood — rites in American life. This is the rite of the meeting which is called not to do business but to do no business. It is a rite which is still much practiced in our time. It is worth examining for a moment.

Men meet together for many reasons in the course of business. They need to instruct or persuade each other. They must agree on a course of action. They find thinking in public more productive or less painful than thinking in private. But there are at least as many reasons for meetings to transact no business.

Meetings are held because men seek companionship or, at a minimum, wish to escape the tedium of solitary duties. They yearn for the prestige which accrues to the man who presides over meetings, and this leads them to convoke assemblages over which they can preside. Finally, there is the meeting which is called not because there is business to be done, but because it is necessary to create the impression that business is being done.

Such meetings are more than a substitute for action. They are widely regarded as action.”

In other words, doing nothing can be considered an action plan. Now don’t we all feel better?

The debate in our nation’s capital over the Affordable Health Care Act continues. Even though Republicans own a majority in all three branches of government, there has been no consensus on how to repeal/replace it.

It seems from the rhetoric of the American people, there are actually parts they like such as having their children stay on their policy till they reach 25 years of age, and allowing people with pre-existing conditions to get some kind of health care coverage.

The biggest hurdle may be in what the act has become known as; “Obamacare”. Republicans  seem to have the attitude of “we don’t much care for Obama” and anything with his name on it is an abomination. I can’t help but wonder if both sides could fix it/make it better if his name wasn’t associated with it.

Ironically, the Freedom Caucus, is asking republicans to work with conservatives and throw out the whole thing which sounds strange to me when you consider the fact that most every Republican would claim they already are conservative.

It’s not easy, even President Trump commented “who knew health care could be so complicated” (actually anyone who relies on P.P.O.’s and co-pays already knew that). Trump even threatened to work with Democrats (insert gasp here) to get something done much to chagrin of Republican law-makers.

The Republicans point out more insurance companies are bowing out and rates are sky-rocketing which is true. Democrats warn a full repeal would cause millions to lose coverage which is also true. So where does the answer lie? Perhaps in the provable middle where few dare to tread and even fewer are able to politically return.