statute does confer substantial authority -- i should say, it delegates authority on the president, but congress ultimately has the primary role in setting immigration policy. it always has. so, the president cannot exercise that power. as broad as it appears to be in the statute, he cannot exercise it in a manner that exceeds or undermines congress' control. in other words, the ninth circuit says that the way the president instituted a ban, it totally eclipsed congress' authority in the area of immigration. >> you know, susan, as we're watching the debate, and danny laid out for us the legal implications in the process moving forward, you've heard the argument coming from your side of the aisle, these are both courts in the west. we're talking about washington, the state, as well as california, in terms of the courts that have made these decisions. your perspective on this being an activist court? >> well, you can certainly try and shop around different courts