talked to his attorney general yet. >> that's right. >> reporter: i had a chance to catch up with kellyannec conway. i asked her whether or not the president views this decision as some sort of set back or defeat. she didn't exactly answer that question, but here's what she had to say. this is a defeat? do you see this as a setback? >> he sees it as the statute provides a president with great latitude and authority to protect the citizens and protect the nation's national security. this was not argued on the merits. now that we'll have an opportunity to argue on the merits, we look forward to doing that. i think his tweet was perfect when he said, we'll see you in court. there you go. some confidence being expressed by kellyanne conway at the white
house. not a lot new in terms of arguments being laid out by the white house in response to this, just the very tough talk that we're going to see you in court. that is not exactly going to win the day at the supreme court. i asked kellyanne conway, is this something you're now going to take to the supreme court. she didn't exactly answer that question either. i think the next legal steps for the white house are sort of up in the air at this point. i don't think they've gotten to that point in terms of where they go after what is a set back for the administration. >> do we expect the president to continue his line of attack, whether it's verbally or on twitter against particular judges as he continues to fight for this ban? >> reporter: you heard in that audio that we played earlier, that he sees this decision as
now, four months from now. but he has said on camera this decision poses a grave threat to the national security of the united states. so his option is very simple. withdraw the current order that is subject to the stay, write a new order with the help of his new attorney general, national security people, perhaps some legislators that will survive constitutional attack. explicitly eliminate green card holders. >> alan is exactly right. this is an option for donald trump to admit that he was wrong to file this executive order and say, i'm going to do better next time. alan, have you been paying attention for the past 20 days? do you think that's a possibility? >> we have a conflict between what the president says is the national security of the united states. i think we can pressure him into saying that in order to protect
the national security of the united states, he can't tolerate a situation where for the next months this case is in limbo and it's not being enforced. >> by doing that, isn't he acknowledging then that they rushed into this, it wasn't well thought out? he could decide to do that, you're absolutely right. but i guess the question is, is that probably? >> there's another way he can do it too. he can leave this order in effect, leave it subject to a stay. and then issue a new order that supplements the order. i'm now going to issue a new order and that order applies only to a, b, c. >> the reason i think that jeffrey is correct on this is if you look at donald trump's history, the president -- the last big piece of litigation he was involved with was his trump
university case. now, how did he respond to adverse rulings in that case? he attacked the judge, calling him a mexican. >> but he did ultimately settle. >> he ultimately settled the case, but his initial reaction is always aggressive fighting back, freigthreatening appeal. >> he said he hadn't talked to the attorney general. after >> one of the things that surprised me is that normally when the government loses a case, you get sort of a vanilla statement that says we respect the decision of the court, we're going to look at the decision and decide whether to appeal or not. but the response here was a twitter response. >> professor foley one of the main arguments from the department of justice was that the president's decisions about immigration when motivated by national security concerns are unreviewable. it says, quote, this is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability.
>> look, i think that's fundamentally correct. i don't think that the president's decisions on national security are unreviewable. that's really not the argument that the administration is putting forward here. the argument instead is that under a supreme court precedent called youngstown, when the president acts with the explicit blessing of congress, which the president has done here, he is entitled to a presumption of constitutionality. when those two political branches are in agreement, the court should defer on the issue of national security. i do not see that the ninth circuit engaged in any such deference here. >> they did argue unreview to believe the this court. >> in a very half hearted way. >> they actually just seemed confused. the guy paused for a long period
of time when asked about this and said, yeah, it's unreviewable. clearly they were not impressed by that argument. >> and they shouldn't have been impressed by that argument. everyone agreed that the constitution would trump any statute or any presidential executive order taken pursuant to a statute. but i do want to remind the viewers, though, that this is a statute that congress has passed. that statute says that the president may suspend the entry of all or any class of aliens if he deems it appropriate in the national interest. so he does have the blessing of congress. this is not just the trump administration. this is congress also weighing in on this and blessing what the president has done, which is narrower than what the president could have done under the statute. so what we have here is a court that's being very aggressive and not giving the president and congress the deference that a court would normally give them.
>> well, you know, that's true. that is a part of what congress did. the other part of what congress did was say you cannot discriminate based on national origin which is part and parcel to what's going on here. remember what's really the case. the court did give extreme deference. they talk about it a great deal in the opinion that they were trying to defer and they recognize the president should deserve some deference. however that deference is contingent on there actually being a national security issue. the court was trying to resolve this very discreet point, please tell us why we should reinstate a ban and not go back to the pre-ban status quo where when he had vetting measures in place. tell us why you would be harmed, federal government, if we returned to the ban we had in place. to that, there was crick kets.
that said we're not going to do that. >> i think that's a critical issue here, which is that nationals that's a critical issue. they were the most intense vetting of any travelers to the united states, in particular those coming here as refugees and in particular those coming from sierra. the idea there was a need to do more than was being done in a substantial way is not actually supported. >> leon, from your expertise and past role as the director, how will this work moving forward going through the court system? it goes back to the way it was but that doesn't mean, to paraphrase donald trump, a bunch of bad people will rush in. it still means everybody has to go through the same process of applying for a visa, the vetting. >> take the example of syrians. if you look at the history of our adjudication of syrian refugee applicants, many have
been denied. during the process of looking at those cases we found bad information in law enforcement intelligence databases, we didn't find them credible during the course of interviews. that means there was a process in place that was working. there is always room for improvement but the fact is the process was substantially working before. >> secretary, the president said earlier tonight the court's decision was political. as has been pointed out, there was a carter appointee, a george w. bush appoint tee and one from president obama. is this political? >> as someone who has argued these issues in the country i see this as a weak decision. when you have a decision full of gaping holes you have to wonder where the judges are reaching without sufficient legal backing to get there.
couple examples, standings of the states challenging an executive immigration order of a president. we had states asserting injury to the student is through several leaps of logic was a state of injury to the state itself. irrep raability. the court concluded the injury to the state, you can't repair it. the court was saying you can. we're talking about a national from a terror sponsoring region or country allowed to come in and then vanishes back into the fabric of america like the 9/11 hi line of scrimma hijackers did. you can't find that. the due process analysis. the court took the most favorable person and said there are multiple candidates of aliens affected and they took the most favorable to say a
lawful permanent resident with his green card saying he needs time to make his case before you revoke it. there are other aliens affected by the executive order who don't have the same due process claim, they've never been given anything by the united states and the court was applying the due process so everyone. i would love to appeal this because it would be easy to go against this on appeal. >> i want to talk to our other attorneys about this. we have to take a quick break. we'll continue in a few minutes. we'll talk about the political impact this loss may have on this president who obviously loves to focus on winning. stay with us. people spend less time lying awake with aches and pains with advil pm
than with tylenol pm. advil pm combines the number one pain reliever with the number one sleep aid. gentle, non-habit forming advil pm. for a healing night's sleep. you foundi'm a robot! cars.com rawr yeti and found a place to service it, too. ♪ jingle bells now when you're ready, you can sell your old car and find your new one all on cars.com you know us for shopping, and now we're there for every turn. cars.com i use what's already inside me to reach my goals. so i liked when my doctor told me i may reach my blood sugar and a1c goals by activating what's within me with once-weekly trulicity. trulicity is not insulin.
it helps activate my body to do what it's supposed to do release its own insulin. trulicity responds when my blood sugar rises. i take it once a week, and it works 24/7. it comes in an easy-to-use pen and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable prescription medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. trulicity is not insulin. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take trulicity if you or a family member has had medullary thyroid cancer, if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to trulicity. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms such as itching, rash, or trouble breathing; a lump or swelling in your neck; or severe pain in your stomach area. serious side effects may include pancreatitis, which can be fatal. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your risk for low blood sugar.
common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may make existing kidney problems worse. with trulicity, i click to activate what's within me. if you want help improving your a1c and blood sugar numbers with a non-insulin option click to activate your within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity.
it wasn't on the constitutional merits of the executive order but they held up what the washington court had ruled on last friday. the president tweeted, "see you in court." we'll wait to see if there's more reaction from the white house. >> do you see this as a setback? >> he's seen it as the statute provides the president with great authority to protect the citizens and the nation's national security. this was not argued on the merits. now we'll have an opportunity to argue op the merits and look forward to that and prevailing. i think hi tweet was perfect saying "see you in court." >> professor dershowitz, before the break, robach said there were map issues including standing. assuming the president does not take your advice and issue
another executive order, goes to the supreme court, do you think the issue of standing is going to be primary? >> i do. and i think that the supreme court will not accept the lower court's rulings on standing. this is the most extreme extension of standing i've ever seen. it gives the state of washington standing to raise constitutional issues on behalf of a family in yemen who have never been to this country and are coming for a tourist visa. it's a stretch. also the establishment argument which would give standing because the establishment clause is limitation on government, it's hard to say there's an establishment of religion here because they picked seven terrorist nations that happened to be nations that are involved in islamic extreme terrorism and giving preference to religious minorities. the refugee act in 1944 gave
preference to jewish refugees being victimized by nazism. if it goes to the supreme court on the merits there's a substantial case the court will rule in favor of the trump administration at least insofar as it applies to people who have never been in the country. but it's a long time in coming. i don't think the supreme court will reverse this stay order but if they get to the case on the merits it will be a very close case. >> jeffrey toobin, the president tonight said this politics. how much does personality play into this? are they affected by the president of the united states tweeting about them or calling them out? >> many any journalism career i've devoted a lot of my life to figure out why judges do what they do and i've only had partial success. it is difficult to ask a judge why did you rule the way you did because they always say the same
thing. i wrote it down. that's why. the law forced me to rule the way i did. the fact is judges are human beings so it's not just the law. i don't think donald trump helped his cause by demeaning judge robart and calling him a so-called judge, saying all these judges are political. would this decision have come out a different way if he hadn't said those things? i doubt that too. at the margins i think judges are affected by the political context, by the emotional environment but, you know, the merits are the merits and i think these judges -- >> i tried a lot of cases and universally lawyers say don't insult the judge, don't become the judge's enemy because in truth in a close case an attack on a judge could be fatal to your cause. but here you have a unanimous decision by the court in a
strong opinion against the trump administration. i really don't -- i think the insults are a strategic mistake but -- >> i'm a trial lawyer too. i think at the end of the day facts matter. and i think what the court saw here is there are an intensive vetting process in place. there was no real showing by the administration how this step would in any way actually enhance our safety based on the steps that were being taken. the administration failed to make a factual record that showed at the end of the day they were going to protect us any more than the system in place. >> professor? >> you know, look, let's keep in mind that this has been procedural wrangling thus far. i agree with alan i've never seen any decision by any court that pushes the idea of third party standing this far. usually that's used for individuals who cannot for some pragmatic reason bring their own constitutional claims. that's not the case here.
those are affected, the students, faculty, scholars in the state of washington affected by this executive order were perfectly free and capable of bringing their own lawsuit should they have wisheded to do so so to extend standing to an institution like the state of washington is unprecedented not supported by supreme court precedent. i do think that would eventually be overturned. going back to the merits of this case, assume even strict scrutiny applies to this executive order because we believe there's some sort of national origin discrimination or discrimination based on religion, you would ask yourself first, is there a compelling government interest. that here is national security. that's been accepted as a compelling government interest for a very long time now. then you'd ask yourself about narrow tailoring. this executive order is narrowly tailored to the seven countries identified be i the previous administration and congress as po posing significant national
security risk to americans and limited in time. i think it would survive both prongs of strict scrutiny. the administration is in a very strong position on the merits. >> could i make a brief point on standing because lawyers love to talk about standing but moat people don't know what they're talking about. it's the right to bring a case in a united states courtroom. i think what has the surprised all the lawyers who have looked at this decision is that what the court said here is that the state of washington, because it brings students into its universities, brings customers into its restaurants, is the representative of virtually anybody across the world who's not an american citizen and it extend in some respects to the constitution nal rights of americans that -- >> professor dershowitz was raising the issue of why does a family in yemen who's never been to the united states -- >> exactly. why would they are have standing to appear in our federal court
and say the u.s. constitution protects their rights? >> laura? >> we're forgetting about a recent case where we assumed standing was not an issue. the texas dreamers case where the state of texas was acting in a similar way to the state of washington and its decision about whether to extend an executive order of president obama. we're all guessing to an extent because the supreme court did take that case, a 4-4 split, but we have no idea whether they were ultimately going to find standing. the thing about supreme court cases, even though the ninth circuit as found standing in this case, even the if the supreme court took this case, we can't presume they will also agree there is standing. that will be an argument they'll have to face. to say it's totally unprecedented is irresponsible. >> secretary, professor dershowitz raised the idea of a third option a that the president could do is start out with a new executive order and make it more focused and if that
went to the supreme court, if he got another ruling that is there an advantage for him to get a positive ruling at a lower court level before going to the supreme court? if he goes to the supreme court from this ruling from a ruling against him, does that in any way sort of prejudice the supreme court against the case? >> well, obviously, if it's a 4-4 decision it would not be sufficient to overturn -- >> it would go back on appeal. >> exactly. there's that disadvantage here. there is the point i made earlier, i think this is a poorly respectp earlier, i think this is a poorly respectoor ly reasoned opinion so it's a good candidate for appealing but on an eight-member court there's a problem. i would say the court barely scratched the surface on the facts at the district level and the ninth circuit level. there are many terrorists who have come in from somalia, the bowling green terrorists, those plotters were from iraq, so the
seven countries are involved and we have many terrorists who have abused our refugee program. in the last couple decades i could name 18, including three of the first world trade center attack plotters. the notion that there aren't facts to justify a pause in the refugee program and a temporary ban -- >> there were changes made to the iraq vet tating after the bowling green case. >> very substantial changes. even after the bowling green case there have been many improvements to the vetting process. for example, the ability to check in a comprehensive way law enforcement and intelligence databases to find out if there is information that needs to be applied in one of those cases. >> much more to talk about ahead. thanks to our panelists. so how old do you want uhh, i was thinking around 70. alright, and before that? you mean after that? no, i'm talking before that. do you have things you want to do before you retire?
oh yeah sure... ok, like what? but i thought we were supposed to be talking about investing for retirement? we're absolutely doing that. but there's no law you can't make the most of today. what do you want to do? i'd really like to run with the bulls. wow. yea. hope you're fast. i am. get a portfolio that works for you now and as your needs change. investment management services from td ameritrade. when you're close to the people you love, does psoriasis ever get in the way of a touching moment?
if you have moderate to severe psoriasis, you can embrace the chance of completely clear skin with taltz. taltz is proven to give you a chance at completely clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of patients had a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. in fact, 4 out of 10 even achieved completely clear skin. do not use if you are allergic to taltz. before starting you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you are being treated for an infection or have symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz. including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. now's your chance at completely clear skin. just ask your doctor about taltz. now's your chance at completely clear skin. could save money on car insurance.e in fact, safe drivers who switch from geico to esurance could save hundreds.
so if you switch to esurance, saving is a pretty safe bet. auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call.
fweeting, "see you in court." shortly after that the attorney general from washington state had this response. >> well, we have seen him in court twice and we're 2 for 2. that's number up with. -- number one. in my view the future of the constitution is at stake. >> jeffrey toobin is back with us. al lewis. kirsten powers. jeffrey lord. kayleigh mcenany. and dana bash. dana, in terms of the presidential reaction calling this a political decision, it was a unanimous decision including a judge appointed by president george w. bush. would it surprise you if the president continues to go after these judges? >> to go after them personally rather, yes, it would surprise me given the backlash that we have seen from everybody including his own nominee for
the supreme court. however, i'm told by a senior administration official that the backing that they say that they have for the allegation that this was a political decision is because of the fact that in this ruling the judges cite arguments that the washington state attorneys made talking about the fact that this is effectively just a part of the muslim ban that then candidate trump talked about on the campaign trail and that is they argue unconstitutional. now the judges didn't actually say they agreed with it but the fact that they referred to that argument a couple to-tiof times their ruling suggests to the people at the white house they say it is inherently political because they're reaching back to a political statement even though the justice department attorneys were arguing no, that's not what this is about, this is about national security. >> jeff toobin, does that make
it a political statement, in washington they were reaching back to things candidate trump said about a muslim ban or alleged comments to rudy giuliani? >> i think that ridiculous. the decision is the decision and the decision is by a bipartisan group of judges and the fact that they cited a statement by president trump, it is well established that the courts can look at motivations for law. it is not just the text of the law. courts can look at legislative history, at the statements of members of congress when they're reviewing a statute. that's something the courts have done for decades. the fact that a president -- a candidate and then a president has talked about a muslim ban, that is up with factor that is relevant. >> jeffrey lord, is it a political decision? >> sure. >> how? >> i think these people have political opinions -- i mean, i hate to say this, i was disillusioned of this when i
worked on about five supreme court nominations if for reagan white house. this is a highly political process. fact that roger towney tried to right slavery into the constitution was political because he was pro slavery. >> a judge in washington was appointed by george w. bush, one of thee jumgs -- >> when i bork eworked in the u states, i worked on appointments. they come through the senate, get a blue ship from the home state senators. the senators in washington are liberal democrats so they'll see to it whoever is appointed is fairly consistent with their point of view. >> i think it's fair to say there are judgments that are perspectives and it's entirely possible he has a -- the george bush appointed judge has a perspective. we don't know that. to say like jeffrey said intent is something you look at. that's a matter of law, something you consider. what donald trump said about
what he wanted to do is relevant. there's nothing political about it. then you look at the actual words in the executive order and that was -- the problem is the executive order on its face actually i think isn't providing a religious test that's unconstitutional but when you add in what donald trump said his intention was, that's where they run into trouble. >> they could have said, wait, here's what trump did, he designated these same seven countries president obama did as having an affiliation with terrorism and said based on these legitimate -- >> the white house, when we talked to the communications director last night, saying it was the republican controlled congress who identified these -- >> they allowed the white house department of homeland security to make a list. part was designated by congress, part by dhs. what president trump should do, he faces a hostile climate if he appeals this to the supreme court. there is zero chance you will
get ginsburg, sotomayor, breier to come on your side. don't appeal to the supreme court. you'll lose there. let it play out on the merits because i think they can win there. or as alan dershowitz suggested make the executive order more limited to appease the ninth circuit and let this go away. >> isn't that donald trump, president trump, having to admit this thing was rushed, wasn't well thought out and we made a mistake and -- >> partly. it should have never applied to legal permanent residents. they have a full panoply of constitutional rights. they should say we rushed this, we're amending it. appease the ninth circuit and the national security of the united states. >> one of the most fascinating parts of this are the countries they chose to single out and continue the place at the feet the obama administration. they rely on what happened on 9/11 but they fail to honor the fact 15 of the 19 attackers were from saudi arabia, not included in the executive order. two were from the united arab
emirates, not in the executive order. one from egypt, one from lebanon, not -- >> pakistan. >> it says in the second this is based on what happened on nine hef. that's another part we have to look at. >> in the decision, it's important to note, the ninth circuit said we have begged, basically begged the white house to make its kay, show us why it's so urgent to get this done and they have not come up with an explanation. they department go through country by country. they said why do you have to do this and the white house explanation, an overreach sort of saying our decision is unreviewable. you're not supposed to challenge us on anything. if we say terrorism andimmigrat courts are supposed to all fall away. the most important part of the decision is the court saying that's not the standard. >> how much does it hurt the
white house and start to occupy the time of the white house? this becomes obviously a huge deal for them until they come up with something else to change focus. >> no question. it already has. the fact of the matter is that this has taken up much of the octob oxygen of the first few weeks of the trump presidency and not in a positive way. certainly, the president and his aides who wrote this and said they thought they were doing this first and foremost to keep the campaign promise or at least part of one think that they did okay but even the president we know but not happy when he realized the way that this was fumbled big time in its -- the way it was written, executed, communicated, every way you're supposed to do something like this that is so ip credibly sensitive and knowing it is incredibly sensitive. >> isn't it about timing? there was an order along with
the opinion issued today where the court laid out how you appeal en banc. and the short version is the briefs won't even be in until the end of march if they go en banc. it gives you some idea of how long this will stretch out. >> we have to end it there. i'll talk to senator senator richard blumenthal about the heat he's taking from pump about neil gorsuch's rashes about the judiciary. known for its perfect storm of tiny bubbles,
it has long been called the champagne of beers. ♪ if you've got the time welcome to the high life. ♪ we've got the beer ♪ miller beer knowing where you stand. it's never been easier. except when it comes to your retirement plan. but at fidelity, we're making retirement planning clearer. and it all starts with getting your fidelity retirement score. in 60 seconds, you'll know where you stand. and together, we'll help you make decisions for your plan... to keep you on track. ♪ time to think of your future it's your retirement. know where you stand. ♪ time to think of your future here you go.picking up for kyle. you wouldn't put up with part of a pizza. um. something wrong? so when it comes to pain relievers, why put up with just part of a day? you want the whole thing? yes, yes! live whole. not part. aleve.
be the you who doesn't cover your moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. be the you who shows up in that dress. who hugs a friend. who is done with treatments that don't give you clearer skin. be the you who controls your psoriasis with stelara® just 4 doses a year after 2 starter doses. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis. before starting stelara® tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or have symptoms such as: fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. always tell your doctor if you have any signs of infection, have had cancer, if you develop any new skin growths or if anyone in your house needs or has recently received a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to stelara® or any of its ingredients. most people using stelara® saw 75% clearer skin and the majority were rated as cleared or minimal at 12 weeks. be the you who talks to your dermatologist about stelara®.
afoot and light-hearted i take to the open road. healthy, free, the world before me, the long brown path before me leading wherever i choose. the east and the west are mine. the north and the south are mine. all seems beautiful to me. my lineage was the vecchios and zuccolis. through ancestry, through dna i found out that i was only 16% italian. he was 34% eastern european. so i went onto ancestry, soon learned that one of our ancestors we thought was italian was eastern european. this is my ancestor who i didn't know about. he looks a little bit like me, yes. ancestry has many paths to discovering your story. get started for free at ancestry.com
his fate and avoiding questions about president trump. this after senators from both parties say gorsuch told them in private he found the president's remarks criticizing the federal judge's lg a challenge to the immigration's immigration ban demoralizing and disheartening. attacks on the judiciary by the president to be disheartening and demoralizing. >> reporter: today meeting with a bipartisan group of senators to discuss the nomination to the high court, the president denying gorsuch ever criticized him. >> his comments were misrepresented. >> reporter: white house press secretary sean spicer went further insisting over and over that gorsuch was talking in general term and not direct recalling out the president. >> the judge is clear he was not commenting on any specific matter, right, and asked about
his general philosophy. he went out of his way to say i'm not commenting on a specific instance. >> reporter: that statement refuted by a spokesman and senate republican that met with the nominee and said they discussed the president's criticism. >> disheartening is a great world. the judge and i talked about that and frankly, he got pretty passion it about it. >> your answer about the context doesn't make sense when you think about what senator said this morning on tv. he said he asked judge gorsuch specifically about the president's so-called judge tweet and in response -- >> this is like the fourth time i've asked and answered. >> this is a different context. >> i understand that. >> reporter: connecticut senator richard blumenthal said gorsuch made it clear he wanted concerns shared. >> in fact, judge gorsuch specifically said you should feel free to mention what i said about these attacks being disheartening and demoralizing. >> reporter: still, he and other democrats want gorsuch to go further and publicly denounce
the president's comments. >> what he did does not show independence. it shows an ability to desire the appearance of independence without actually -- without actually asserting it. >> reporter: while republicans contend the episode demonstrates gorsuch's respect for judicial independence. >> what judge gorsuch is showing here is his independent character, the fact as a judge he's going to call them as he sees them. >> that was atheena jones reporting. >> i want to get your reaction to the decision of the ninth circuit court of appeals. >> this ruling may be narrow in scope but has very, very broad ramifications in ending the chaos and confusion that president's executive order unleashed. it's a real victory for the rule of law showing courts will not be bullied by threats and personal insults and my hope is
that it indicates where the courts will be going and sending the president a message. rip up this order. do not adopt bans based on religious tests or unconstitutional standards. >> today the white house press secretary sean spicer said that judge gorsuch was talking in general terms and not direct recalling out the president when he was speaking to you. so i want to ask you, was gorsuch talking in general terms? >> in disputably he was talking about president donald trump's attacks on the judiciary and i repeated several times that i was absolutely outraged by these attacks by the president of the united states and judge gorsuch responded that he found it disheartening and demoralizing. referring to those same attacks
but -- >> so were those that he found it demoralizing and disheartening? the it he was referring to you have no doubt was what you had -- the tweets, the comments by the president? >> not only i have no doubt but also his spokesperson that same day confirmed my interpretation. judge gorsuch's own spokesperson and at least three of my colleagues have heard the same thing from judge gorsuch and confirmed it, two of them publicly. so i think that president trump ought to listen to them and to his own white house staff who were at the meeting. >> just to be absolutely 100% clear, when sean spicer says and i quote the way senator blumenthal character riizes the he was talking about tweets, that's not what the judge said. you're saying he's flat out wrong? >> i'm saying what judge gorsuch said to me is that disheartening and demoralized were what he
found donald trump's attacks to be. and there is no doubt in my mind that he was referring to those attacks because i urged him and in fact, he must publicly condemn them, not behind closed doors in the privacy of my office and colleagues but publicly, clearly, directly. that's what he must do. >> you said -- you said that to him? >> absolutely. >> how did he respond? yesterday you said that, you know, he sort of didn't really answer. >> he declined to answer that question, and he declined to answer other questions, which i found very troubling. >> but i mean, he will be appearing on the hill in public hearings. you and others will have the opportunity to ask questions publicly. isn't that the venue for him to be able to talk about the president's tweets or to repeat what he said to you? >> it's another venue. and i will press him very aggressively for answers then and in the meantime but right
now, there is a special obligation for him to condemn publicly these attacks because the independents of the judiciary core principle of our democracy is at steak here and it's not at some point in the future that he can avoid the damage to the courts. it's right now. and he needs to demonstrate his independence, otherwise the american people will have justifiable doubts that he will be more than a rubber stamp for the trump administration. >> the president also brought up an incident from 2008 where you said you served in vietnam and hasn't actually serve in vietnam but served during vietnam. president trump this morning tweeted quote senator richard blumenthal who never fought in vietnam misrepresents what judge gorsuch told you. do you have any response to the president? >> this issue is not about me. it's far bigger than me, and far bigger than judge gorsuch's nomination. it's about the independence of the judiciary and donald trump's
attacks on it, which really are a disservice to the core principle of our do maemocracy, integrity and independence of the courts. >> thanks very much. >> thank you. a quick programming note to the breaking news on the travel ban court ruling, the messy truth van jones will not air tonight. instead, tomorrow at 9:00 p.m. bob ferguson and solicitor general, i'll talk to them live about their victory.
♪ don't just eat. ♪ mangia! bertolli. you foundi'm a robot! cars.com rawr yeti and found a place to service it, too. ♪ jingle bells now when you're ready, you can sell your old car and find your new one all on cars.com you know us for shopping, and now we're there for every turn. cars.com ...one of many pieces in my life. so when my asthma symptoms kept coming back on my long-term control medicine. i talked to my doctor and found a missing piece in my asthma treatment with breo. once-daily breo prevents asthma symptoms. breo is for adults with asthma not well controlled on a long-term asthma control medicine, like an inhaled corticosteroid. breo won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. breo is specifically designed to open up airways to improve breathing for a full 24 hours. breo contains a type of medicine that increases the risk of death
Muttahidda Qaumi Movement (MQM) founder Altaf Hussain has said that the ghoulish army of Pakistan is trading with the rights and future of the oppressed natio
Muttahidda Qaumi Movement (MQM) founder Altaf Hussain has said that the ghoulish army of Pakistan is trading with the rights and future of the oppressed natio
Muttahidda Qaumi Movement (MQM) founder Altaf Hussain has said that the ghoulish army of Pakistan is trading with the rights and future of the oppressed natio
Muttahidda Qaumi Movement (MQM) founder Altaf Hussain has said that the ghoulish army of Pakistan is trading with the rights and future of the oppressed natio
Muttahidda Qaumi Movement (MQM) founder Altaf Hussain has said that the ghoulish army of Pakistan is trading with the rights and future of the oppressed natio
Even though not a single incident of ceasefire violation has taken place along Line of Control (LoC) ever since an agreement was reached in February between Indian and Pakistani forces, incidents of terror activities in Jammu and Kashmir do not seem to stop.
almost 30,000 came from those terror sponsoring countries. so we have to have more rigorous extreme vetting done. there's no extreme vetting. when you use the lottery, it's diversity based on national origin. it's inevitably skewed to those that don't like our ideas because the countries that are diversity based are those that are tear irsponsoring countries often because the numbers are lower. >> neil: you know when the latest terrorist came in in 2010, he was fined. there was nothing to telegraph that he would be a problem and became radicalized. that happens to a lot of folks. so how would we know through any system, lottery or otherwise, whether people that come in now can't be kind of warped later? >> neil, that's the great
couple examples, standings of the states challenging an executive immigration order of a president. we had states asserting injury to the student is through several leaps of logic was a state of injury to the state itself. irrep raability. the court concluded the injury to the state, you can't repair it. the court was saying you can. we're talking about a national from a terror sponsoring region or country allowed to come in and then vanishes back into the fabric of america like the 9/11 hi line of scrimma hijackers did. you can't find that. the due process analysis. the court took the most favorable person and said there are multiple candidates of aliens affected and they took the most favorable to say a
there's enough time built in to respect congress's role in here. do you agree? >> no, chuck i disagree. i think it's regrettable, like cardin and hoyer have said. at bottom united states' sanctions are most important and i'm confident the american people, as they learn more about this agreement are repudiating it and congress will ultimately reject it. >> explain the fundamental divide. it seems on one hand you have the administration and many world powers who believe iran is a regional power in the middle east and you have to just live with it and manage it. and there are opponents like yourself, prime minister netanyahu of israel and saudi arabia who say no iran should not be a regional power and all this deal does is give them more power. is that the divide we're looking at here? >> that's one of the fundamental divides, chuck. iran is a terror-sponsoring, anti-american outlaw regime.