Do I understand this correctly?

According to Twitler, the USA needed a 3 month temporary travel ban to give his people time to put a "better" vetting system in place. This was the purpose, supposedly, of the EO in late January.

The ban was blocked by various courts.

It's now over 4 months later. A month longer tab he said he needed to put in place better vetting.

Don is again tweeting that the 3 month temporary ban is still necessary, that it needs to be called what it is (a travel ban), and also that we have extreme vetting.

Is this correct?

How, in any way, is this a good argument tho persuade the scotus to take up the case? Keep tweeting, Don.