9-0 or not, SCOTUS was pretty convincing on travel ban

Firstly, here's the details on the court ruling.

And the 9-0?

Newsweek on a despicable and highly disrespectful page where they had a Gollum version of president Trump, argued that "Per curiam" does not mean unanimous.

"Per curiam" doesn't mean unanimous, sir. And three justices couldn't reinstate the whole ban because the others wouldn't let them.

— Cristian 💫 (@cristianafarias) June 26, 2017

Okay, maybe unanimous, maybe not. But,

Per curiam refers to a decision handed down by the court as a whole, without identifying any particular judge as the author. It is the opinion of the court as a single body. Most decisions on the merits by the Supreme Court and other appellate courts in the U.S. are signed by individual justices. Even when such signed opinions are unanimous, they are not termed "per curiam." Per curiam decisions usually deal with issues the court views as relatively non-controversial.

[Emphasis added] Non-controversial means it was closer to 9-0 than 5-4. The left is busy in publication after publication trying to convince themselves this is not a win for president Trump.  But come October, this will be a convincing win for the president, should he decide to extend the order beyond 90 days (which arguably he could do, given the obstinate inaction on his Executive Order, he has every right to impose at this point). What do I mean by convincing? At least 6-3 in support of his temporary ban.

Trying to convince yourself it will again be overturned at this point is to truly take leave of your senses.  This was not a 5-4 decision, and the October revisit will not be either.