To Dateline London. Donald trump and the hugely controversial travel ban. Should the president be welcomed in britain . And parliament votes to begin the process of leaving the European Union but what kind of europe will be in existence in some two or three years time . My guests today are jeffrey kofman, who is a North American journalist, mina al oraibi, who is a commentator on arab affairs, Maria Margaronis of the nation, and michael gove, who is a times columnist and conservative mp. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its a duck. So Donald Trumps ban and it is a ban, although apparently temporary clearly targets people from some mostly muslim countries. The Result Demonstrations around the world and political convulsions in the united states. Is this a political masterstroke however, saying to Trump Supporters, you wanted something done about islamic terrorism, well, here is something . Or is it as domestic and International Critics believe shambolic
Thinks the media is cherrypicking these images and the president s aides are actually bringing him pictures showing these detained children smiling and plays games. More on that in a bit. The president has falsely blamed democrats for the situation on the border. He did so again today. I say its very strongly the democrats fault. Theyre obstruction. Theyre obstructionist, and they are obstructing. The United States will not be a migrant camp, and it will not be a refugeeholding facility. It wont be. You look at whats happening in europe. You look at whats happening in other places. We cant allow that to happen to the United States, not on my watch. Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen has been the point person to enforce the latest policy, and she has insisted the white house is enforcing the law, a point she made repeatedly in the white
i am considering exactly that. If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you, and that child may be separated from you as requir
ballot. one of the leading arguments, in fact, the first argument trump makes, is that this is a political question that should be resolved by congress. which sets up, actually, a kind of terrible potential which is that the supreme court says, this is congress business, trump appears to win the election on january 6th, 2025, the democratic congress says he s disqualified. so this issue may not go away even if we get an opinion from the supreme court in the middle of february of this year. rick, we re hearing, and viewers are catching up going, oh, this started as almost a long shot or hail mary approach. but it spread across several states. it s now reached the supreme court. they obviously, as renato explained, don t think they can duck it. i m curious what you think, as an election law expert, whether it was unavoidable or not, the court getting dragged in earlier. what i said was not rhetoric, the opening of some political novel. it is true that tonight the court is getting invo
momentous case since bush v. gore and it will have huge implications for the election and there s no easy way for the supreme court to duck it. the thing is, mary y have no comment. i don t have a lot of confidence, mr. rosen has much more confidence than i do that there is any originalist thinking. to me, it s a political question of what outcome they prefer to have associated with themselves. what is your level of confidence? on the immunity question, i think there is a chance that s if the d.c. circuit rules in a comprehensive ruling that there is no absolute immunity for a former president, for crimes committed while in office, that the supreme court might just deny cert? that means? just don t take it at all? don t take it at all. they already denied jack smith s request that they take it and just leapfrog over the d.c. circuit. in part, i don t think that s because they didn t think it was important. i think it was because the d.c. circuit had already accelerated
homosexuality and same-sex marriages. is this a slippery slope argument, are people being a lrmists, or is that going to happen? i don t think so. it s the same point, it may be that justice kavanaugh tries to reassure us, but what is going to happen, a red state is going to pass a law that says you can t have a same-sex marriage or the governor of mississippi said maybe they ll pass a law against contraception. then someone is going to be injured, someone will try to get a license and not be able to get it, and there will be a lawsuit. and it will go up to the supreme court. what do they do then? do they duck it? and they have said, look, there is zero interest in the woman for the abortion decision, and that reasoning, many people have pointed out, extends to these kinds of things justice thomas is talking about. so the trigger they ve put in the hand here, it s not the goodwill of the nine or five justices, it s individual red