My question is what's the point of packing all the bans, pauses, and restrictions in one executive order? It seems like this only gives opposing litigation the chance to win on one or a few minor aspects and stay the whole thing. Why not just modify sticking points and break the last one apart into precise EO's. For example, one EO specifically halting accepting Syrian Refugees until a more thorough vetting system is in place. There's plenty of testimony from intelligence officials saying they aren't comfortable with the vetting procedures. There's plenty of ISIS statements they are/plan to infiltrate the refugee population. Wouldn't a challenge to that specific EO only have arguments there is no threat and/or the President doesn't have the authority to do so? It seems that would be a slam dunk for the WH to defend.