normal succession, the deputy attorney general. the solicitor attorney general, the president ignored all of that to appoint mr. whitaker as acting attorney general. it raises a lot of legal questions, both under the statute and then also constitution ali. john, what about the decisions he will make, daily decisions on a host of issues. aside from mueller, can those be called into question by anybody who is criminally liable under civil litigation? i think that really is the question that the president s lawyers at the white house, i assume raised with him, and that obviously, this is politically controversial, but it s going to be legally problematic for the president if mr. whittaker as acting attorney general takes controversial actions. people can challenge those, challenge regulations, challenge personnel appointments, challenge immigration decisions. it will get caught up in litigation and will cause a problem for the president.
immigration policies and we should be reforming the agency responsible for immigration enforcement. but they summarize that position with #abolishi.c.e. i think that particular approach is too easily charactertured by president trump as misrepresenting democrats as welcoming open borders and abandoning any immigration enforcement. that s not the case. my colleagues with whom i ve spoken, they adopted #abolishi.c.e. as a short term way of conveying a more substantial position which is we should have strong enforcement but we ought to do in a humane way, the opposite of recent immigration decisions by president trump and recent enforcement actions by i.c.e. senator coops, kasie hunt, nice to see you. good morning. i want to turn back not necessarily foreign policy but foreign meddling. the president rewriting what s gone on with vladimir putin saying that russia is meddling in the mid-term election but that he s trying to help
henry has breaking news from capitol hill in the wake of the travel ban ruling. reporter: key house republicans telling us they are not likely to have the votes to pass major immigration reform legislation tomorrow so donald trump s best shot at cracking down on illegal immigration may be trying to build on the supreme court victory by taking on more executive action, the president signals he wants more aggressive action as declaring this is a moment of, quote, profound vindication over one of his signature policies and he said we must be tough about vetting who is coming into the country, the narrow decision may not open the door to vast new executive power in terms of crafting immigration policy since the court was ruling on whether the injunction can stand so now it is to go back to a lower court where they will decide on the merits but in his opinion on behalf of the majority john roberts did assert the president has significant legal authority to make immigration decisions to ke
the down the travel ban 1.0. since then i think it s fair to say the administration has regrouped and finally level-tested a ban that would pass supreme court muster. the opposite of what you d usually expect. another political and legal point to make is we re not done with kons constitutional chal tlon challenges to immigration policy. daca was challenged in federal courts. easily could imagine one or more of those cases going up to the supreme court, which is why the makeup of the court matters so much. we ll all be watching for retirement watch and why this decision in a way is so instructive if the issue is going to be what s the scope of presidential power which it comes to immigration decisions. and i want to see if we have pete williams still with us over at the court because it s my understanding that justice briar, i believe, is reading the dissent from the bench now which is something that we don t necessarily often see happen, pete. and is it an indication of just
it makes no sense to expel talented young people who, for all intents and purposes, are americans. laura: the whole citizenship thing, millions who came here illegally to get citizenship, that s all a formality, mr. president. what president trump and his admin s ration did by rescinding daca was to actually restore the rule of law and return immigration decisions and the fate of those daca kids to the constitutionally appropriate branch of government, congress. yet district court judges from san francisco to brooklyn and now here in washington, d.c., have stymied this president at every turn. this is totally absurd and an abuse of power. now, you might be asking yourself how we got here. and how did we get to a point where people from foreign countries believe they can crash our borders, game our immigration system, and ultimately just wander freely in