A country cannot be directed like a corporation, that is what US president elect if s finding out, itseems even childish to write something like this, but three major changes in”direction” (sic) prove it:

° Change in “policy” (a word that does not fit with this new president) with China, he is eating up his words and accepting “China alone” , not with Taiwan…

° Change in “policy” with Russia’s president Putin, he now wants to keep sanctions.

° Last but not least, he has suffered a severe blow when the Ninth District federal appeal court rejected its abominable anti-immigration decree, but he nevertheless continues talking like a bully when he says he will get it applied anyhow, he said: “SEE YOU IN COURT”, depends on which Court?

To see the legal options I recommend reading NYT‘s 02/10/2017 article: “Trump’s Legal Options in Travel Ban Case”, which I am entirely quoting under MORE at the end of this post.

These major setbacks reveal that this president has to learn what democracy and (good) politics are all about, maybe the TV Reality Show will end, who knows?

WASHINGTON — Shortly after Thursday’s appeals court decision blocking his travel ban, President Trump vowed to fight on. “SEE YOU IN COURT,” he wrote on Twitter.But which court?Here is a look at Mr. Trump’s options.

Two roads to the Supreme Court

Mr. Trump could file an emergency application to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to stay the trial court’s ruling blocking his executive order suspending travel from seven mostly Muslim countries. That is the only way for him to try to obtain a very fast ruling. Since Mr. Trump has said the court rulings against his travel ban pose an immediate threat to the nation’s security, he might be expected to pursue this strategy.If he does, the Supreme Court could act within days. Under its usual practices, it would not hear arguments and would issue a very brief order announcing the outcome with little or no legal reasoning.Richard J. Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard, said the justices should take a different approach in this case if the administration files an emergency application, recalling that the court heard arguments in very short order when the Nixon administration in 1971 unsuccessfully sought to block The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing a secret history of the Vietnam War.

Many legal experts say Mr. Trump’s chances of success at the Supreme Court, which for a year now has had just eight members, are slim. A 4-to-4 tie would leave the appeals court ruling in place. It would take five votes to overturn the ruling, and it is unlikely that Mr. Trump could obtain the vote of any of the court’s four more liberal justices.

Mr. Trump could also try to file a more conventional petition seeking review of the appeals court’s ruling. That would be more orderly, and it would allow the parties to file detailed briefs attacking and defending the appeals court’s reasoning.

It takes only four votes for the Supreme Court to agree to hear a case this way. Under its ordinary practices, though, a decision on whether to hear the case would probably not come until April, and arguments would not be scheduled until October.

By then, the Supreme Court may be back at full strength if Mr. Trump’s nominee, Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, is confirmed.

Two options in the appeals court

On Friday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, asked the two sides to file briefs setting out their positions on whether a larger panel of the court should rehear the case. The administration could urge the court to do that.

Were the Ninth Circuit to agree, the case would ordinarily be heard by an 11-member panel, including the circuit’s chief judge and 10 judges chosen at random. The court has a liberal reputation, but its judges have a wide variety of ideological leanings, and it is at least possible that such a panel would rule for Mr. Trump.

But this strategy also requires time, and the case would still probably end up in the Supreme Court.

The administration has a second option in the Ninth Circuit. It could continue to litigate the case before the three-judge panel.

The panel on Thursday set a schedule for submitting briefs in the underlying appeal. (Recall that the question decided on Thursday was whether to stay the trial court order and not whether it was correct.) The last of those briefs is due March 29.

More proceedings in the trial court

Judge James L. Robart, who entered the temporary restraining order, has also set a briefing schedule, on whether he should make his ruling more permanent by issuing a preliminary injunction. The last of those briefs is due Feb. 17.

If the administration were inclined to submit additional evidence justifying the ban, the trial court would be the place to do it. But it is not clear whether there will be further proceedings before Judge Robart on whether he should issue a preliminary injunction.

On Thursday, just after the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, a lawyer for Washington State wrote a letter to Judge Robart saying the appeals court had effectively entered the preliminary injunction.

“In light of the court of appeals decision,” Noah G. Purcell, Washington State’s solicitor general, wrote, “the states assume the district court briefing schedule is no longer applicable. The states will not be filing a preliminary injunction motion and brief in the district court tonight, unless we receive contrary guidance from the district court.”

Many federal trial judges around the country have also addressed aspects of the travel ban, and Mr. Trump won a notable victory in Boston last week. But unless the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is overturned or modified, the nationwide injunction issued by Judge Robart will stay in place.

Starting from scratch

Finally, the administration could issue a narrower executive order on a travel ban. It would probably be promptly challenged in court.