all right the Supreme Court just out with their ruling that they are
upholding president Trump's travel ban against majority Muslim countries we're
starting to get reaction coming in from members of Congress across the country
we heard Steve Scalise this is the right decision Marsha Blackburn SCOTUS
decision is a victory against the left's open borders agenda and liberal activist
judges the White House just responding via CH tweet through the president
saying Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban wow this just coming in in
the last hour we're still getting reaction and joining us now by phone is
Jonathan Turley law professor at George Washington University and professor we
just heard from John Roberts on the lawn of the White House saying we're still
waiting to hear exactly from the White House what all this means what the
implications are and the ultimately the outcome is that from this but first to
you what does this mean well first and foremost I think this decision is a shot
across the bow the lower court that they need to separate themselves a bit more
what can be rather Cindy airy comments from the president we have a president
who makes comment that many people object to but the question for the
Supreme Court is what you need to base the decision on when you declare a
federal policy or law to be unconstitutional from the very first
travel ban decision I said I thought the Supreme Court would reverse the lower
courts I thought what was unprecedented was the degree to which the courts like
the Ninth Circuit relied upon the president's tweets and public campaign
statements as the determined to factor in their decision we've never seen that
where we have some areas where those types of political comments can be
relevant on things like racial gerrymandering but we've never seen
anything quite like this because basically what the court was saying and
that all three generations of these decisions
was that the president's tweets trumped the record created by the agent and so I
think what the court was saying is you can't just ignore that these federal
agencies created a record on why they're doing this and you can't ignore that we
have historically given president sweeping deference as to who can enter
the country you know professor as I've been saying we've been watching reaction
pour in across the country for members of Congress and this one coming in from
Senator mazie Hirono she's the Democrat from Hawaii she had this to say in
response to this ruling listen this is a dark day for anybody in our country who
cares about checks and balances because what vis 5 justice decision it was very
close decision obviously says that the president can pretty much do whatever he
wants to discriminate against groups of people and say this is for national
security and the court ignored all of the comments that the president had made
that he had every intention of banning Muslims from our country
you heard the senator there professor Turley saying this is a dark day for
this country for anyone who cares about checks and balances she questioned the
authority that this gives the president and also said she disagrees with them
not looking at comments that the president made via Twitter or elsewhere
and did not use those to play a part in this ruling I'm afraid to have to
disagree with the senator the dangerous aspect of this litigation was the
expansion of the judicial role the courts are sometimes referred to as the
least dangerous branch because they are apolitical and neutral and limited in
their review what was being suggested by the Ninth Circuit is that they could
pick and choose comments made on a campaign trail or in tweets and use that
basically dismiss a broad record established by the agency that is a
danger to the separation of powers this decision has less to do with the merits
of the travel ban if it does the judicial role
and what judges need to do to guarantee that they're not being in Leicester
biased by these types of comment so I'm afraid the senator got it wrong here for
people that believe in separation of powers is this opinion is likely to be
reassuring and to be clear on the point where critics argued that this was this
discriminates based on based on religion the Court did reject those claims that
that this is motivated by religious hostility what did you make when you
were able to read through the Justice Justice Roberts opinion there I'm where
he stands I mean I his wording is quite clear well you know I actually thought
it was a very good opinion by Roberts there was an interesting passage where
the majority takes an implied swipe at the president where if they refer to
other presidents elevating the debate they were heard of George Bush going to
a mosque who soon after 9/11 and that was clearly an indication that they
don't agree with the president's public comments about Muslims but that's what
gives so much credibility to the opinion if they're saying look we don't we don't
like these comments but that doesn't mean that they become more important
than the record itself created by these agencies or the decades of precedent in
which we have given deference to prior president Jonathan Turley thank you very
much for calling in on this breaking news professor Jonathan Turley thank you
thank you well the Supreme Court ruling seen as a huge victory for President
Trump the fallout from today's decision upholding the administration's travel
ban that in a minute and what does it mean politically Chris Darwin is here
and reaction continues to pour into the Supreme Court's decision upholding
president Trump's travel ban House Majority Whip Steve Scalise tweeting
this moments ago this is the right decision at real Donald Trump ran on
putting America first again and standing up to keep our country safe that's
exactly what this policy does in today's ruling affirms that authority
apartment-style claiming it institutionalizes discrimination they
are denouncing the decision Chris I wrote is here FoxNews politics editor
Chris clearly a big one for the president one that one would assume
strengthens him politically at least among his supporters well I mean I would
suppose that if you were happy about this ruling you were probably already
gonna vote Republican in the fall I don't know I don't know that this I
don't know that this gets you any new voters the question is does it turn
anybody off or does it do anything like that I and this is just me I'm no legal
expert but I would say this this is a good reflection of how institutions
change under Trump but also how institutions change Trump if we think
about the first iteration of what he was going to do it was a religious test for
entry into the United States which was roundly decried as unconstitutional
immoral wrong wrong wrong as wrong as it could be and so they tried another and
then they tried ultimately a third one and the third one as Professor Turley
was talking about was rooted in arguments that came from agencies about
what they wanted to do and what their national security priorities were they
included North Korea on the list they changed the perspective they
changed what they did they tried something that was outside of norms and
outside of what the Constitution would allow and they kept going until they
found something that they could get away with and the court affirmed them in that
today and in that way that's how institutions so Trump changes
institutions yes but institutions also change Trump well you have a good point
there he's often called the disrupter and chief the business man from New York
but what you're saying is here we have an example of the Trump administration
and the Trump presidency working within the attendants of our
democracy and the institutions that are therefore created to carry out the law
of the land versus just you know tweeting and and and and being on the
campaign trail and spouting things off that's right and what the courts talking
about here is the power of the executive as it relates to regulating people who
who comes into the country and who doesn't come into the country now the
reason that the lower court's kept going back to what the president said that was
discriminatory and unconstitutional at the beginning is because they want to
say that any policy that stems of banning travel from anywhere has got
to be rooted in bigotry necessarily and what this Supreme Court is saying is no
you don't get to impute motive into what a federal agency does or does not do you
do not get to do motive here just because the president was baiting
supporters and being himself during the campaign doesn't mean that now this
agency is not allowed to do what it wants to do with inside the scope of the
law yeah and this certainly will fire up opponents ACLU among them tweeting this
saying the court failed today and so the public is needed more than ever we must
make it crystal clear to our elected representatives if you are not taking
action to rescind a dismantled Trump's Muslim ban you are not upholding this
country's most basic principles of freedom and equality so the battle lines
really have been drawing well and the but the question here for the ACLU for
everybody else and this goes to the discussion we're having about civility
and people shouting at each other and all of this garbage that is strewn in
our public space these days good news our framers left us a methodology we get
to have elections every two years to decide who will represent us in Congress
that's what we get to do that's where that energy is supposed to go it's not
supposed to go into trolling people on Twitter it's not supposed to go to
shouting at people at restaurants it's supposed to go in deciding who makes up
the government that's what the government is there for that's the
purpose of the Congress go vote if you don't like it go vote if you do like it
go vote that's the whole point of this that's why they always say well they say
remember in November and what do you think the president has learned from
this I mean working within the frame of our government I would not dare hazard a
guess on that Eric Shawn for all of for every harley-davidson in Wisconsin
there's no way I would even try to guess that and finally the next step I mean
you'll see the Democrats and others opposing of any action on Capitol Hill
no I there's the the Republicans will be glad that this matter has been settled
in a way that is stays within these norms they will be happy that this
matter is done and laid aside and they can quit fighting with the
administration about it and they can they can lay the
there and have it stay there will be noise the Democrats make in Congress but
that'll be more about the election than it will be about changing any long yeah
it is the midterms crystal waters always Chris good to see you thank you you bet
of course much more still coming in on today's big ruling the Supreme Court
upholds the president's travel ban five to four just moments from now Alan
Dershowitz will join us live to break down today's decision plus we'll hear
from a top Democrat his reaction to today's big news
next the Supreme Court upholds the president's travel ban and the president
has just issued a fresh statement in reaction to this today's Supreme Court
ruling is a tremendous victory for the American people and the Constitution the
Supreme Court has upheld the clear authority of the President to defend the
national security of the United States in this era of worldwide terrorism and
extremist movements bent on harming innocent civilians
we must properly vet those coming into our country this ruling is also a moment
of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media
and democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border
and our country as long as I am president I will defend the sovereignty
safety and security of the American people and fight for an immigration
system that serves the national interests of the United States and its
citizens our country will always be safe secure and protected on my watch
joining us now is democratic Texas congressman Henry Cuellar thank you for
joining us thank you following this announcement
following this breaking news out of the Supreme Court your thoughts well first
of all the president's first draft would have not be constitutional the second
draft which is the one before is the court has already ruled that it's
constitutional on this vetting and again we got to respect the Supreme Court
every country has a right to protect its borders and I know there's some some
measures do bring a little controversy but at the
end of the day if the court says it's constitutional then we move on and
change the law if you want to change the law but right now we respect the Supreme
Court on this particular issue constitutional and as Chief Justice John
Roberts writes in his opinion falls squarely within the president's
authority the president and the White House and the statement that I just read
out loud just out now seems to indicate that they or he feels some sort of
vindication from the Supreme Court upholding this travel ban is does this
vindicate the president wait you know again notice what happened the president
came up with something was broader he came back he narrowed down and again I
do agree the way he narrowed this down the first draft was too broad this seems
to be a little bit more narrow and this is what the court ruled on you know I
was pulling up a tweet by Marsha Blackburn members of Congress continued
to react to this breaking news and and she writes she writes this do we have
that up there the the full-screen graphic here we go she writes the SCOTUS
decision is a victory against the left's open borders agenda and liberal activist
judges we must be able to vet individuals coming into our country so
we can keep Tennesseans and America safe what does what message do you think and
she's saying it sends a message to the left what message does this send you
know Democrats and Republicans we all want to secure the border
we sometimes disagree on how we do it when it comes to the wall or in this
particular ban but at the end of the day we all want to secure the border nobody
wants to have open borders and I wish that when it comes to border security we
will be more bipartisan I live on the border and I certainly know you know
what we need to do to secure the border and I wish we could only do it more in a
bipartisan way and and again to say that somebody's open borders or somebody's at
the extreme we got to get away from extremes that's that's the issue that we
see in and this is quite honestly why we don't have this
because people are going to the extremes we want to secure the border we'll have
some differences but let's get together and work out those differences well
certainly in this five to four opinion they did not view the president's travel
ban as extreme genre Justice Roberts writes the order was expressly promised
a legitimate purposes preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately
vetted and in inducing our other nations to improve their practices and against
all critics it says the text says nothing about religion this is the first
big Supreme Court decision on the president's one of the president's
policies is this a big win for the Trump administration congressman well I think
this is a win for the administration you know in this way one is there's no
religion if there would have been religion let's say the first draft
remember there was another draft that was that was very different as long as
you don't use religion you do the extreme value which I support extreme
betting we get those countries that do more to see to bet those people they
come in we vet those people and as long as there's no real religion involved I
support extreme betting how does this decision fit into the broader debate on
immigration at this moment with Congress so aggressively trying to figure out a
way to solve the problem that our own border well again it goes back to what I
said we all want to secure the border how we get there
does bring some differences but again if we start off with the common things that
we need to do at the border more personnel more technology making sure
that we vet the people that come in and then let's take the issues that that do
bring some controversy that is what do we do about an asylum that we change the
rules on the asylum what do we do about the wall which is in
my opinion a fourteenth century solution to a 21st century issue that we have if
we first start off with the things that we have in common and then look at the
other ones that I think we can do a lot more to secure the border congressman
have you had a chance to talk to your your colleagues there
in Congress after this travel ban was upheld by the Supreme Court and get
their reaction no I haven't I've been working on some items dealing with
Central America and what we need to do to secure the border the southern border
that Mexico has with Guatemala so those are the issues I've been focusing right
now so I haven't talked to him about the this particular band but again I again I
will respect the Supreme Court I think people need to respect the Supreme Court
sometimes it's hard for people to do that if you remember when the Supreme
Court came up with the decision on health care the people on the right were
not happy and I'm sure people on the left are not happy with this particular
decision but again constitutionally we gather support the legitimacy our
government means that we have to support the supreme court no matter how much we
just agree with the Supreme Court well the president and his team just moments
ago calling this travel ban ruling a moment of profound vindication at
congressman Cuellar thank you good to see you thank you so much and to
recap today's breaking news and what could be seen as a major victory for the
White House the Supreme Court ruling five to four in favor of upholding
president Trump's travel ban coming up next
Alan Dershowitz the famed harvard law professor will join us here for his take
on this historic ruling this morning Wow as President Trump in reacting to the
decision from the Supreme Court this morning that upholds his travel ban and
a reaction continues to pour in the White House issuing a statement saying
it upholds the authority of the president in these type of cases
meanwhile Attorney General Jeff Sessions issuing his own statement just a short
while ago saying quote today is a great victory for the safety and security of
all Americans the Constitution and acts of Congress confer on the president
broad discretion to protect the interests of the United States today's
decision is critical to ensuring the continued authority of President Trump
at all future presidents to protect the American people we will continue to take
and defend all lawful steps necessary to protect this great nation from our
reaction was drawn by Harvard Law Professor
meredith alan dershowitz who is with us now professor you're known as a great
harbinger of civil liberties in this nation what jumps out you the most and
is most legally significant by this ruling well we should never confuse
support for a policy for the constitutionality of a policy I'm
strongly opposed to this policy as a matter of a morality I think it doesn't
protect us take for example a country like Iran which is a terrorist country
and it doesn't have vetting but it has so many good people in it who would make
great American visitors and citizens I think generalizing country by country
is not the best approach but it's constitutional I predicted it
would be upheld I predicted it on Fox on CNN on many other places because there's
a big difference between something being good policy and something being
constitutional or unconstitutional so I'm gonna continue to oppose the policy
I hope we can do better and vet people individually but the Supreme Court did
uphold it five to four whether they would have upheld it had a Gorsuch not
been on the court but rather the Supreme Court justice who was nominated by
President Obama but kept off the Supreme Court Merrill garland I don't know how
the case would have come at at Merrill garland had been the swing vote rather
than Gorsuch so it's a pretty court important question yeah a very narrow
ruling five to four to point out do you agree with the dissent a Judge Sotomayor
saying that this shows a reasonable person would say that there's this was
motivated by anti-muslim animus and do you agree with the critics who think
this is basically anti-muslim I don't think so not all the countries are
Muslim and out among all Muslim countries are within the ban
look the vast majority of terrorist activities around the world massive
terrorist activities around the world have come from countries like Saudi
Arabia and we're now seeing Syria Iran is the greatest exporter of terrorism in
the world so I think the opposition is a little overwrought as I said I don't
support the policy but I don't believe that it
violates basic civil liberties or constitutional law or human rights again
there's a line between opposition and saying the kinds of things that some of
the opponents have been saying so I I don't think I do agree with the extent
to which justice Sotomayor condemned the the policy of the administration I think
it's wrong but but I don't think it's an anti-muslim ban I think that's a mistake
and legally speaking the lower court seemed to take into consideration the
president's tweets so what he said on the campaign trail and the High Court
just basically narrowly focused just on the law why is that legally significant
well when you have a President of the United States issuing an order you can't
say it's unconstitutional as to this president but it would be constitutional
if President Obama or a president Hillary Clinton issued it you can't have
a one constitutional rule for one president in a different constitutional
rule for another president it's ironic that Justice Kennedy who joined the
majority opinion did look at motivation when it came to the cake and the gay
couple case he did rule that the statements made by the Colorado
Commission showed an animus toward religion if that standard had been
applied here you might have had a different result but I think this is
different being a presidential action authorized by the Constitution and a
ruling by a Colorado Authority Professor Alan Dershowitz as always professor
emeritus at Harvard Law thank you for joining us this morning thank you okay
while our breaking news coverage continues in just a moment the Supreme
Court ruling five to four in favor of president Trump's travel ban reaction
still pouring in on that and we're waiting the president will be right back
For more infomation >> I'm on Patreon and I'm nervous- but excited! lol - Duration: 4:38. 
For more infomation >> Maddow Rushes to Run Leaked Detention Pics, But They Blow Up in Her Face - Duration: 3:52. 
For more infomation >> Police Out In Force, But Mexico Fans Celebrate Peacefully - Duration: 1:31. 
For more infomation >> Mexique - Suède (0-3): Salcedo inscrit un but contre son camp - Duration: 4:07. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét