Page 7 - Campaign Statements News Today

Supreme court than in the lower courts. the business of evaluating presidential executive orders based on campaign statements by a nonpresidential, nonpresident candidate for office, im certainly unaware if the supreme court has ever done that before. i would be very -- i would be very confident the trump administration will be saying to the court, this is about the executive order itself. its not about the campaign. its not about anything outside the record in this case. it is simply about the ...

Court felt it went too far in its use of a religious test, based on what he talked about during the campaign, based on tweets we saw prior to him taking office, and what this ruling seems to suggest is that the balance is in the other direction. national security imperative was paramount to the way they roomed and we saw no mention of tweets or campaign speeches in the ruling. thats significant. it was a limited ruling, werther it will go forward or not reviewing the own tire case. no reference ...

>> reporter: the travel restrictions last only 90 days, and the court wont hear the case until october. by then the case could be dismissed as moot, no longer a live controversy. >> with me justice correspondent pete williams. pete, looking sort of at the tea leaves, according to your report, youve got alito, gorsuch and talmadge who said they would have the executive order go into effect. weve got to pick off two more. we dont know how justice kennedy and roberts, more likely to be conservative...

Their nation of origin or their religion, what you have here is you have the ninth circuit court of appeals finding a different route. heres some choice courts that came from that decision. think said immigration, even for the president, is not a one-person show. the other part that was very interesting from this court is that they said national security is not some incantation that can just be said by the president in order to justify any and all actions. so theres some pretty strong words, eve...

Im of a different opinion now. i think the opponents of this have a stronger argument than they did several weeks ago for the singular reason that president trump continues to tweet. if he stopped tweeting, perhaps he would be different. how do you still make the same argument today when it seems president trump has actually enumerated all the opponents of his bans argument before the court. >> you make a good point. theres so much water the court is going to carry for you if youre working again...

In the past they looked at the constitutional analysis and they looked at trumps campaign statements and said i think that there is fueled by some sort of discriminatory intent. this time for the first time the court is looking at the statutory analysis, the statute that the president so often invokes for his power here and saying even under that the president hasnt justified the national security interest justifying this travel ban. we havent heard anything from the justice department, but the ...

Amendment, no establishment of religion. those have been upheld saying president trump, you violated the constitution. and now these tweets essentially gut what his lawyers were saying in trying to defend him. and so its really undercut the rationale for the ban and the whole legal defense. and its a real problem. >> isnt it the case in the rulings that have all gone in your favor, theyve said its unfair to take the presidents campaign rhetoric into account when youre trying to decide what hes d...

Department have been building in court. or at least trying to build. as your wife wrote in "the new york times," the question here under the first amendment is, would a reasonable observer take the presidents actions as an effort to condemn or disparage a religion. and thats exactly what he made clear this morning in the four tweets. he has basically said in those four tweets, ive had the same intent from beginning to end. from my campaign statements until 6:44 a.m. on june 5th. his intent has b...

Clear this morning in the four tweets. he has basically said in those four tweets, ive had the same intent from beginning to end. from my campaign statements until 6:44 a.m. on june 5th. his intent has been the same. and that is, to constitute and institute a muslim ban. >> right. the idea of being that if that is the intent, that is going to be hard for a court to sign off on that, right? >> thats absolutely right. the other thing he did in one of his tweets, the last one where he says, in any ...

In trying to defend him. and so its really undercut the rational for ban, the rationale for the whole legal defense. and its a real problem. >> and isnt it the case in the dissent on the rulings that have all gone 2in your favor, the dissents have said that it is unfair to take the presidents campaign rhetoric into account when youre trying to decide what he is doing as president. do these tweets now that he is actually president essentially negate that argument by the dissenters? >> yeah, absol...