Can trump's travel ban still be ruled unconstitutional if Gorsuch becomes supreme court judge?

Trumps travel ban will without a doubt go to the supreme court, and they should rule it unconstitutional.
If the blue dogs and corporatists decided to hold off the nomination, then the travel ban should be permanently suspended right? Does anyone know the current supreme court situation with liberal/conservative judges? They made gay marriage federally legal so they must be progressive. I’m assuming most of them are going to rule against the travel ban. But with gorsuch will that be the tipping point where that bill will undoubtedly be ruled constitutional or just?

First of all, “blue dogs and corporatists” can’t slow the nomination. Second, apparently we have the exact opposite definitions of those terms because to my mind they would be the last to want it slowed down anyways. Third, while I see no reason to map this onto gay marriage, that decision was made while Scalia was still alive and on the court. So it won’t “tip” the balance to have Gorsuch on the court- it would restore it.

Most of the travel ban was only in effect till June, with a few previsions lasting until July, at which point the WH is supposed to present a more longterm (and hopefully better thought out) change to policy.

Given that its already April, and the 9th Circut won’t hear the case till May, I kinda doubt the SCOTUS would bother to take up a law that will expire in a few weeks anyways.

Meant to put “Not” in there somewhere.

No, they should refuse to hear the case and tell Trump to stick it.

Seems to me you could have used more than one “not”. Lol.

As I’m sure you’re aware, the justices aren’t going to be the same amount of “liberal” across multiple subjects. The wiki article on the subject contains a chart from the Supreme Court Database showing how “liberal” the justices have voted, with their definition of what that means for a number of legal areas.

But maybe don’t hold your breath for the parenthetical.