Facebook. Com cspan. Well get to those calls than just a minute by joining us on the phone to talk more about this decision is richard wolfe, the Supreme Court correspondent. You have the front page story. Trump loses bid to reinstate the ban. What exactly did the Circuit Court decide in the executive order . Thanks for having me. They decided a few things. One, they decided this was a reviewable. The government had argued it was their decision. To make in the court did not have a role to play they slammed that down decisively by saying the courts do have role to play in situations like this, even if situations involving immigration and National Security. Then they went on to say the states of minnesota and Washington State had standing. There was always an argument about whoever is suing does not have standing. And then they got to the meat of it. They said people are being harmed by this. Obviously, people who are lawful residents, permanent residents of the United States, people have these ofs were being harmed went the executive order into effect. They said if you change the order and came back, there would be arguments that even people who are here illegally deserved due process. And they would still be harmed. Question, it was interesting they said there is evidence based on what President Trump said during the there is in essence, evidence this is the implementation level muslim ban, but they did not decide that question. They simply said it is something that should be considered a they did not have to decided at this stage. Then they also said there is no National Security emergency. The existingwith procedures in the meantime while this case continues . We are not at the merit stage yet. They basically said people from these countries have cannot have not committed terror, and there is no reason to suspect we need this executive order in effect while we further review the case. And finally, they said, theres evidence the administration is already backpedaling a little ut that there is talk by white House Counsel of changing the executive order and that part of the argument the Administration Made was treat the executive order differently than the four quarters of the paper it appears up here they said that is not for us to do. The white House Counsel does not have the authority to change things on the fly and he would have to go back to the president for a new executive order. It was a significant decision. One person tweeted that the two most important words were procurium. This is an order by all three judges, including one appointed by george w. Bush. As was the District Court judge, also a bush judge. Host what can the president do next . He said, see you incorporate. In court. He comes out of court with a loss then says see you in court as if he was not there yet. Everyone interprets that to mean we are going to the Supreme Court next. It is not clear that they will. The Justice Department said last night we are reviewing it. Justice department as a flat by an attorneyight had general. Jeff sessions had just been confirmed. They basically have four options. We have a story that outlines these options. Maybe they are more have not yet. Ht of they can go to the Supreme Court, tried the same quick round of can we get the order restored and implement our policy while were litigating the case . That is option number one. That would be a quick flurry of papers before the Supreme Court to be followed by a quick decision by the Supreme Court but they are tied 44. They probably want no part of this. Everybody seems to think that is the most logical step. Two other things they could do our go ask for the en banc ninth circuit to review. In other words, this was a threejudge panel. They could say we want the full court, court of 11, that would then read decide this case. That seems unlikely because it is the most liberal court in the country in a does not seem like they would want to bother with that step. The third is to sort of throw in the towel and say, we cannot get this order reimplemented but we will fight it out at the trial court in Washington State which is where this is headed anyway. Buturth option, plausible unlikely in this administration with this president , would be a pullback to and say we are going to rewrite his executive order and come up with something different. Host what did the ninth Circuit Court judges say about the white House Counsel, and its role in what it tried to do to clarify this executive order . Know,l, it sort of, you one of the more plausible things the administration did within the first 24 hours of this order going into effect was to say, sort of, oops. There are different ways of doing this, and maybe the way we are doing it where every citizen from these seven countries and all refugees are being barred, and there are no exceptions. In the executive order, originally, it did say we can do individual exceptions, one by one. The white House Counsel during this process said, he was cited in the courts decision yesterday, he said maybe we should allow the lawful permanent residents to have the ability to travel back and forth, but people who have never been in this country, theyre the ones who are the targets of this executive order because we do not know who they are and we do not trust the vetting and screening process. We are going to have this, remember, temporary travel ban for 90 to 120 days, depending on the country, so we can decide how we are going to do screening in the future. The court basically said, as i mentioned before, hes not the president. He cant just make that change, and we cant just signed on the dotted line that that change will be honored Going Forward if it is not in the actual executive order. So, they didnt discount the fact that that might be a plausible thing to do to rewrite the order, but they said that is not is what the forest is before us. Host what is the president does nothing . What if the president does nothing . He has to do something for it if he does nothing, in essence, that is option number three, not going to the Supreme Court, not the ninth a review by circuit but allowing the process to go forward. This was just about a temporary restraining order, which is an executive order, will this travel ban be in effect while its being litigated . That is what was going to happen until the district judge in seattle said no, were going to stop that law. Were litigating it. And that has continued to this day. It has been almost what is it now a week today that that order has been blocked. That would be option three. We go forward with litigation, argue our case against a pulmonary injunction, which is what the state of washington with minnesota is arguing for, and we argue that on a timetable before judge James Robards in the District Court and the Eastern District of Washington State. And that would go forward. It would be the normal process, but remember, the administration has not lost this. All they are losing right now is the ability to have this executive order travel ban in n operation while the case goes forward. That is a very plausible option for them. Wolf, if, as you say, they go forward with the normal process and go back to the seattle judge, what is the timeline . He has outlined a very fast timeline of briefing back and forth. The state makes their case. The administration response, the states can read on to that and then he would take all that under consideration presumably have a hearing. The paperwork back and forth is supposed to happen by next friday, the 17th, that would be done. He can then order another aural argument or make a decision based on the paperwork. So, that is a very quick timetable. Ninthrestingly the circuit last night set if you want to come back to us for a way thatt, here is a timetable would work. It stretched all the way through march. So, they were showing a very normal timetable, not the typical emergency appeal of a stay timetable. Seem like theould option the administration is not going to take. If they are not going to risk going to Supreme Court, it is not really a risk. Nothing has changed him except that it adds that the perception they do not have much of a case. Then they would go back to the federal court in washington, and wed have another flurry of papers over the next week. It is article that that is what trump meant. I do not think he necessarily knew what he was going to do next when he said see you in court. Maybe he meant, we are going to fight this in seattle. Host richard wolf thank you very much for explaining all of that to argue o our viewers. Lets turn to all of you outside of washington. Supporting this executive order in berkeley springs, west virginia. Caller im supporting it all the way. A ninth grader can read the law and said the president has the right to do this. Was watching a bigtime lawyer from the state of washington this morning. He claims that people in syria had the, under our constitution. So that means if we do a grand cycle over there and kill them a ground strike and kill them, they have the right to sue us. This is a man that filed an amicaus brief on this case. What this boils down to is the president against the democrats and the Judicial Branch. Thats just the way it is going to be for four or eight years. It is going to be the president against the democrats and the Judicial Branch. Host carl, isnt that called checks and balances . Caller the two branches against one . Come on. The democrats have the Judicial Branch on their site. Their side. Everybody hates trump. That is a given. Ord, what it is going to boil down to, there is going to be a civil war if we do not get this under control. Were talking to each other like we are enemies. To michigan. O you oppose the executive order. What do you make of this important decision . Caller i am glad for the courts decision. This executive order is nothing but a fear mongering political stunt. I dont believe there is any existential danger to our country, and theres no reason to have it. It really weakens our position calling wolf, and there is no danger. Ok, southtown, west virginia, on our line for supporting the executive order. Caller thanks for taking my call. Yes, there is an existential danger. Terrorism, it is out to destroy this nation. Out to convert the whole world to in slump to islam. All the president did was put a temporary restraining, temporary day if you will, on a 90 hold on anyone coming in from seven country. It does not matter if they are muslim or not. Anybody. A goodsident has done job but trying to protect this country, and people need to realize that there is religion out there that is trying to kill lus. They proved it on september 11, 2001 when i lost my wife at the world trade center. These people, they have absolutely no love for this country. Host can i jump in . You believe all muslims . Caller i believe that, i believe that what he did was a good measure, a good attempt to try and protect us americans. Americans. We are americans. Responsenderstand to the judges when they write this. That the government, the governments lawyer has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the second of order, the government has taken the position that we must must not review its decision at all. Toler ok, well, explained me this. Why did president obama name those seven countries as seven countries of terroristic, that have potential threat. The Somali People that come here cause a lot of damage. The news does not report it. You know, the its just crazy. All he did was say 90 days. All we want to do is vet you. We want to make sure that you are who you are. Im an american citizen. I fought in the military. Right after my wife was killed, i joined the army. Iwas in afghanistan for two years and iraq for a year. And it was in logistics. Ive seen some stuff. I met a lot of great people, all muslims but the fact of the matter is that the countries that have been mentioned are very, very, there is a lot of very bad people. All we want to do is find out who these people are. Theyre allowed to come here. I do not have the right to reenter the United States once i leave the country. Im United States citizen. I do not have the right to enter the United States without getting vetted myself, and im a citizen. Host gregory there in west virginia. Wendy in vero beach, f lorida, opposing the present. Caller i actually support the president. Can i still speak . Host sure, go ahead. Caller what i want to say in my argument is that i actually watch, um, several documentaries by Dennis Michael lynch that actually showed isis, and the their ownin words were they would actually infiltrate our country pretended to be good muslims and get in positions in our country in the government and law enforcement, and positions of power and they would pretend to be good muslims until they got enough of them in here to be in those positions of power, and then they would flip the switch. Then they would put in sharia law, and would do whatever they could do to destroy our country. I dont see how anyone. Host where did you watch that . Caller Dennis Michael lynch has done a large amount of documentaries on the border, the southern border, and isis. Host ok. Mechanicsville, virginia, supporting the president executive order. So, what was your reaction you when you heard the course decision . Caller good morning. How are you doing . I sum it up like this. Truman, thearry former president harry truman said, you know, we took the United States, turn it on its side and shook it real good and all the screw walls and the nuts got out, and that is how we got california. I think we can apply the same philosophy to the ninth circuit. Host you believe because the ninth circuit is categorized as liberal, caller absolutely if this would have been in the fourth or the sixth, it would have been a completely different outcome. No doubt. Host and there are other proceedings happening in other courts, in a texas court, etc. Caller i think what they will probably do is they will probably rescind this and reissue another executive order. I guess that is probably what they will do. Host you think that is what the president should do, not fight this . Caller he runs the risk of a and that would send it right back to the ninth circuit. Host it would uphold the ninth circuits decision. Caller that is what i am saying, uphold that decision. They will probably rescinded, rewrite it, and three issue a new executive order and reissue a new executive order. Host senator ted cruz says that the Supreme Court likely to uphold the trump order. Were getting your thoughts this morning on the courts decision, ninth Circuit Court, conservative saying that that court has been over liberal and has been overturned many times. Thats the republicans position on this as the decision about what to do next for the Trump Administration hangs out there. We ask all of you, what do you think about the court and what should happen next . In northport, florida, supporting. Good morning to you. Go ahead. Caller i read the whole opinion. And im of the belief that the court may have misapplied the law. They quoted a case where you are captured in afghanistan, the administration, the Bush Administration wanted to suspend habeas corpus. And the court ruled they could not do that. While the problem with that, looking at that case and applying to this situation, is when youre captured and youre held on a prison that is under the control of the United States, it is pretty much as if you are on u. S soil. You cannot suspend a law where the United States has sovereignty. Order where this order is actually dealing with people that are not in this country or in any place controlled by the United States. So, standing, i think is the issue. Court was reaching the merits of the case, which when youre looking at a temporary restraining order you are not supposed to really go into the merits of the case. Merits, they are looking at the actual threats to the United States. That was an impermissible thing for the court to do to look into that. They also mentioned that they read the newspapers and so on. I do not know that the newspapers were part of the record. They are not supposed to go outside of the record and look at other comments, unless it was presented to the court below. So, for those reasons, i think, you know, it is going to be reversed. If they had a rehearing they might be able to prove that. Host let me read you what the court had to say about the decisionmaking. Our decision is guided by four questions. One, whether the applicant has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits evidence. Whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a state. A stay. Whether the claims that the government made that there is erosion of separations of powers here. Three whether issuance of the stay will substantially injured that partys interest and four where the public interestl lies. We conclude that the government has failed to clear each of the two first steps. We also conclude that the final two factors do not militate in favor of the stay. At this stage of the proceedings, it