about the history of rhetoric by other presidents who talk about how there s no place for bigotry in america. and he said, we need to look past the words of this president and look to the power of the presidency. and said that because it was religious neutral on its face, the travel ban, you know, should be upheld under the presidential power. but i think one thing that is really noteworthy is even what president trump calls that this was a watered down version of theravel ban. this was not the travel ban that sally yates refused to defend, which was travel ban 1.0. this was, as he said, watered down. and i think if there s a silver lining here, it s that the protests and the litigation around the country did have an impact in pushing the administration towards a more neutral travel ban than was initially put out, which included things like denial of entry for people with green cards, which was on its face indefensible. joe? yeah, you know, walter isaacson, it is this is travel b
able to construct a legal architecture to buttress what he wanted dodd all the time. it would have been different if it was travel ban 1.0. versus 3.0. which was motivated by animus. they hadn t consulted anyone in the cabinet and justified it well. in the interim between then and september they went around and put together justifications from national security officials for this. but just because it was legally just because the court found it was legally justified doesn t mean the administration has been telling the truth about this. had they rushed it through and said we have to put this blanket ban on these countries, there s it s in the interest of national security. when the extreme vetting is done, we won t need this anymore. where the vetting plan? the supreme court ruled similarly in obamacare that the president had gone out there and told individual mandate was not a tax and they went ahead and ruled that he could keep obamacare, that he could keep the individual manda
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
circumstances are different, and we might have a different decision. all right. neil, thank you very much. neil was involved in arguing this case on behalf of the state of hawaii. i want to join have doug join me now, hawaii s former attorney general. he s now the state s lieutenant governor. lieutenant governor, we ve had many conversations about this, and you and i have talked about the legal basis for the various challenges to travel ban 1.0 and 2 .0, but in the end the court has come down with a ruling that doesn t address some of the stuff that the case you wanted to make and the one that neil wanted to make. they have come down on the side of the president having broad authority to control the entry of what the court calls aliens into the united states. what s your take on this initially? well, i hurt today for hawaii families and others around the
for more president presidential retreat michelle goldberg, columnist from the new york times whose new column on the trump family separation policy just posted. and venita gupta president of the leadership council on civil and human rights, former assistant attorney general for the doj s civil rights division. let me start with you, michelle. there s been this question all along, how will the president be constrained and what will the institutions hold? and we ve seen the courts step in and constrain them on the travel ban 1.0 and 2.0 and on daca. we ve seen the congress constrain them on the obamacare repeal with john mccain, the thumbs down. it felt to me like this was the first time that just civil society, just literally public opinion pressure constrained him. yes. public outrage. and i mean, as desparing and apocalyptic as so many things were this week the one cheering part was we talked so much about outrage fatigue and people feeling numbed and powerless and overwhelmed. bu