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 is the governments burning to make a strong showing that it is likely to prevail against the states procedural due process claims. K. J. . Caller you see, what is wrong with that is it, you remember the arizona case where arizona attempted to, you know, do its own version of immigration and regulate, you know, people within their borders. The executive branch pretty much had, and congress, pretty much has exclusive, you know, control over immigration policies. That we couldink make an argument of due process, because if we were to go to war or something with the nation, or for instance, if you look at look, istate can say, had a great relationship with them. Our Due Process Rights are being violated. I do not think you can really argue due process in this circumstance, especially where there is existing, um, legislation. Especially the same legislation that President Trump, when he did his News Conference when he read. It gives the executive power to ban or restrict entry. And thats really, you know, you know, that is the crops of the issue. Issue. Crux of the the fact that these people that are outside the United States and not citizens of the United States, they do not really have an interest. They are not being deprived of a constitutional right. Host listen to this. Because this is what the court says. The procedural protections provided by the fifth amendments due process clause are not limited to citizens. Rather, they apply to all persons within the United States, including aliens regardless of whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent. Apply to certain aliens attempting to reenter the United States after traveling abroad. Caller ok, well, thats true. So, what the court should have done as remand and said that ban was overly broad and send it right back down to the trial court so that they can tailor it in such a way. I do agree with what you just read that, yes, if you are holding a visa or a green card, i should say, you do, you are afforded rights. So, i agree with that. Host you are opposing this executive order. Tell us why. Caller hello . Yeah. I just want to say just like president bush lied to us about iraq having weapons of mass destruction. President trump is also lying to ofabout, you know, the fear muslims, because, you know, this whole thing is about, you know, planned long before president bush came into the administration power. The one that was behind all this was the Prime Minister of israel, netanyahu. He wants to have power over those seven muslim countries in that region. Hes putting fear in the United States with the help of the United States. Hes putting fear and americans and it started with the destruction of the two towers by new york city. Of the world trade center. Host his opinion in new york. The Prime Minister of israel visiting the president next week in washington. Allen, houston, texas, supports this executive order. Caller hi, yes, i oppose it. I just think it was hastily written. And theyl probably rewritel it to the letter of the law, but they violate the spirit of the law. And the proof of that is they tried to ban people with green cards and dual citizenship. I know that was received this in but as part of it, but that just tells you how in such a hurry they are to make this rule. Its fueled by bigotry and hate. I live here in houston. Where i live, i am looking at a building that says sheik. I am not sure if im pronouncing the name right. Sheik fayez. It is a heart center. We have so many people from the middle east come to houston for medical treatment. Its just amazing that, and this is ted cruzs district. And, especially ted cruz, who, he did not even come to this country first. He came to canada. Came to a suspect country, cuba. I mean, if you were a Conspiracy Theory, you could say he was, hes some kind of sleeper agent. I am not in that kind of Conspiracy Theory but my point ir very ownthe districts that have so many middle eastern people here. And it is just amazing. But they violate the spirit of the law. And they will probably, you know, get it over the edge by getting the letter of the law. But still there are ethical and spirit of the law concerns, which, in my opinion, they violate very grossly. Host allens thoughts and houston. By the way, if you have not, or if youre interested in reading the ninth Circuit Courts decision, it is 29 pages long. You can find it on our website. If you want to dig into it yourself. Lets go to mike in illinois who opposes this executive order. Hi there, mike. Caller hi. Yes, i oppose it. I think it is kind of a political stunt. It is also come think it is going to do the opposite. I mean, we are going to cause problems for people doing this. It is a recruiting tool for antiamericans around the world. Stanford business. I mean, i can see doing Something Like this if we were at war. But these are our friends. We have agreements with these countries. And here in illinois, we have a lot of, in chicago area, a lot of muslims. We dont have a problem with muslims. You are going to have a problem with anybody or any race, religion or people around the all types of origins and individuals but to make something this broad, its and it distracts from anything that good that is going to happen. I do not understand his whole philosophy on this. I could see a ban, if they had not give a reason to someone access. Host that goes to why washington and minnesota sued, fought this order because they are saying it hurts their public universities who are trying to attract students or who have students from these countries. This is what the ninth circuit had to say. We have no difficulty concluding that the states injuries would be redressed if they could obtain the release they ask for the relief they asked for, a declaration that the executive order violates the constitution and an injunction barring its enforcement. The government does not argue otherwise. We therefore hold that the states have standing. They had to prove standing first and the judges in the ninth circuit agreed with them. John, old fort, tennessee, you are supporting the president on this. Good morning to you. Though ahead. Go ahead. Caller you and all the democrats are just against trump. Ou exactly why and how. You have defended, you have read every letter to everything that was said. You defended everything that was said, nothing what the administration said. , iness it should be hearings, private hearings and let everyone know all of our secrets and everything that is going on. About three or four calls before thatit just right, the guy was was you and all of the democrats since you are antiamericans and anything this country tries to do to better, youre always against it. Host simply trying to read what the court had to say. We have not heard much from the administration except for the president tweeting. He went to reporters and told them the ruling was a political decision and predicted his administration would win an appeal. Easily. Ink, very he said he is not preferred with the attorney general on the matter. The Supreme Court remains shorthanded and could deadlock. Cruz said, senator ted telling the newspaper the Supreme Court likely to up hold the order. He said that this is a quote from the conservatives of texas, it will almost certainly be appealed to the u. S. Supreme court if the Supreme Court follows of the law, federal statues are straightforward and the president has this authority. He added the Supreme Court is likely to conclude just that when it is before it for the u. S. Court of appeals from the ninth circuit ruled that the restraining order against the travel ban may continue while federal judges consider a lawsuit over the policy. The white house has not set what is next legal steps will be. Next legalt its steps will be. Good morning. Go ahead. Caller i do support of the ban and mostly, i disagreed with a couple of things. I think he should have added more countries like the country of turkey and the country of saudi arabia. The reason i say that is because i grew up in nazareth and michael flynn, which works for the administration, said in his organ is ashat erd worse as osama bin laden. Thats only thing i disagree with the band. Theou wouldve added country of turkey and the reason why i support this is the people have the right credentials to come to this country, we would not have a problem. That is the big issue. Why are we making a big issue of this . If we had terrorist come to this country and they have a right credentials, it is no problem. If i have to go to another country, i need a passport. If i do not have a passport, i cannot go to that country. Why are we making a big deal . The democrats are the people who are against mr. Trump. It seems like they want to do everything the opposite of what is right with the country. It has to start. Host john, do you think the president because of the concerns you have, maybe slow down on this, taken more time to draft a this . Caller let me explain this. Yes, maybe a little tiny bit. We have pennsylvania, the number one terrorist, hb one visas,the most hb one guitar country. These people, they come in, they have hb one visas. They never get them were new and they stay in this country with expired visas per i have never heard of anything. Im sorry. Onto i am going to move other voices. I want to let you and others know on sunday, we will talk about the vetting process and give you more detail and take your questions on that. The New York Times report one of the agencies that resettled refugees in the United States is scheduled to receive 275 newcomers, many who will be reunited with loved ones. They go on to report that says dennis, we will talk to you. You oppose this executive order, go ahead. Beler i believe it should the president , they are moving too quick on it. Know, america is presented as a beacon of light. Those countries, there are people through those countries that look up to america and to say they cannot come, the steps and they are taking is too quick. Its is just too quick. The previous president did not take such actions so quick. The actions, it is too soon to be making those actions. And to galvanize the American Public like that around the situation is just the main and nation i do it so quickly. They should have valid proof and to show, hey, this the reason why we are doing this and not just project and make false statements. Host ok. Dennis in pennsylvania. Supporting the executive order. Good morning. Go ahead. Caller i support the president because it is not just terrorists we have to worry about, our jobs. I am out of work right now. I cannot find a job. These people are going to come over and take our jobs. He is a terrorist you have to worry about, too. We need to take control. It is terrorists you have to worry about, too. Donald in new mexico opposing the executive order. Your turn. Caller i want to thank cspan. Yousten to you a lot and have a lot of people against cspan and the best thing about it is you guys are supporting the first amendment. Thank you, cspan. I am completely against the , hereents ban because you have, you have the same president who removed his National Intelligence person and joint chiefs of staff from his cabinet and they can clone when they want to. He can come down so hard on muslim individuals. And then, also, scary in america because they went to the court the other day and basically said we have to answer to you. The president said you do not have the authority to check it when the court system is part of the checks and balances in our constitution. I think he made the executive order up. And i say that because they have no data or information and lay down on the courts just the say this is the reason why we are doing this. More importantly, i think president obama needs to be arrested because he violated the fair terms of the president because every time something goes wrong in this administration, we hear obamas name. Is on theirobama fair terms which is illegal. Host on the same day the knife circuit ninth circuit ruled against the president , the attorney general, jeff sessions, was sworn in the oval office. You see the video of the Vice President mike pence delivering to the oath with the former senators alabamas cant of the bible and his wife there as well taking the old with his hand on the bible and his wife there as well taking the oath. This is the headline. Governor appointed him to fulfill sessions seat yesterday. Surely has been well represented by senators sessions and im confident senator a fine will serve as representative for our people. A former basketball player has served as attorney general and a Yellow Hammer state since 2011. He has provide relief to the governor who is under investigation for alleged sex scandal. The committee has suspended impeachment to allow for the investigation. Strange had announced the bid to replace sessions. He will fill the seat until then. Fromated story to this rollcall that the former senator alan simpson is no longer the tallest senator was served. Alabamas big Luther Strange is six feet nine inches tall. Yesterday, also, in the senate the senate moved early this hsrning to approve h nomination of republican congressman tom price. Thats vote was 5247, along party lines votes. It happened around to 15 a. M. This morning. 2 15 a. M. This morning. The president is going to be meeting with a gem japanese Prime Minister and the 2 of them will discuss relations and participating in a round of golf at maralago area there is a News Conference with the two of them at one 00 p. M. Today and i will be live on cspan. Holding a joint News Conference after their meetings at the white house. Back to calls. Irving in fairfax, virginia. You are supporting the president. Good morning. Caller good morning and thank does. R the job as cspan if congress did as good a job as you did, the country would be better off. Think itfications, i is definitely true we shouldve consulted with our allies on visas and green cards should be a dressed. It was rushed. I would like to point out this been originated with the Obama Administration and the reason the countries were picked is because saudi arabia and uae and that have the traditions have contributions to the Hillary Clinton foundation. Because of that, they were exempted pretty it brings whether it is correct for the nominee of a major party to accept money from saudi arabia. This is a side issue not being talked about. Will move on to shannon opposing the president. Good morning to you. Caller thanks for taking my call. I am from a demographic underrepresented. I am only 29 years old. I enjoy following our politicians and holding them accountable especially this Current Administration where the president is saying whatever he likes. He ised to talk about how monopolizing the court system is the way he is through social media platform. I would like to address the fact that i listened to your show yesterday and today and yesterday, i heard personal medical records, i heard deeply personal stories about addiction and what was upsetting is i do my here in personal stories about others of the man who tragically lost in his wife to 9 11. And terror which is disappointing because you would think they would go with something they have more personal experience in like mental health, addiction services. Security andonomic education, we cannot only minimalize some of the issues, but we criminalize the radicalization minimalize the radicalization overseas and here. Thank you for taking my call. Host david, supporting the president. It is your turn. Caller yes, i do. Thank you for cspan. I think the Democratic Party and the Mainstream Media has affected this conversation. The room for the pause, not to the ban because the seven countries are either the largest orrorist supported states they do not have a way to set their own citizens from coming their owny to vet citizens from, out of the country. Their countries are insurable. Is ins why the pause place. Not because they committed all of these terrorist attacks. These countries are in shambles. It supports the Democratic Party of opposing anything donald trump wants to do. Host a look at the washington times, their size story. Department has nearly doubled the rate of refugees from iraq since a federal judges reprieve. That story in the washington times, if you like to read more. Thomas from fort lauderdale, florida opposing the president. You disagree with him . Caller yes, bigtime. I was not born in the United States. I have lived here with a lot of different people. I have seen people of different nationalities come and go. It seems with this travel ban, it affects more than the people from the muslim countries. I have heard of people coming back home to see their families and going back to the residence and getting held up, put to the custody to be vetted. That should be something that is already done if you are a green card holder, a naturalized citizen. With all of these bands going place, howg to the certain can people naturalized, how certain can they be they are caught up . I does the president s wife i guess the president s wife cannot leave the country. Host in other news, washington counseled. Ay d. Advisor has been counsele Jason Chaffetz was holding a town hall meeting and was asked about this issue and others. Many people gathering at the town hall. The Washington Post said it was a ruckus gathering in rauco us gathering in utah. Take house to what the Committee Chairman had to say on kellyanne conway. Kellyanne conway said what she said about buying [booing] wrong, wrong. I called it out. [applause] [indiscernible] we send a very candid, direct letter to the white house. It should never happen again. That was the congressman at a town hall meeting and he is referring to letter he sent with the Ranking Member to the governments at the committee calling conways comments unacceptable. They asked the agency to recommend discipline as well. A profile piece on chief its online today. Chafshfaced a piece on fetz today. That is the huffington posts take on that this morning. Janet in miami, you are supporting the president. Good morning. Caller good morning and thank you for taking my call. Yes, at this point, i believe the president should go ahead and write a new executive rule. He cant do that. He has every right to do so. Can do that. The ninth circuit, you have to remember, they are part of that left wing area of United States. Obviously, what they did is more became political more than interpreted the law which is what they were supposed to do. They got to political and did not really capture the message that the president of the United States was trying to convey when he was writing the executive rule. He did not get religious. He was not discriminating. He was protecting our country from these countries. By these way, i did study abroad in turkey and a prior caller was correct. When you travel to the countries, they filter you. They check you. If they do not believe you are safe, you are going out. They did it to me. I think the president should go ahead and write a new executive will and he has every right to do so as our president. Host listen to what the court had to say about the issue whether they could review a decision by the president. The government has taken a position the president s decision about immigration all the seat would motivated about National Security concern are unreviewable. Immigration was motivated about National Security concerns are unreviewable. Dan, young will, pennsylvania, you are supporting mr. Trump. The morning. Caller good morning and thank you for taking my call. I would sum it up on one end here and that would be that we have been conditioned for the last 50 years to enjoy the fruits of our great country. Mr. Trump is a man of action. I have done work for the gentleman many, many years ago. He is what you see. Controversyto cause and action. He wants people to react. Move the ball forward. Good peopleinly around him to help them interpret the company constitution. He watched the course and the different sectors, i am sure, to do their job. Quite frankly, we have the right to opinion. That is what makes a great country, which we are. We do not have a right to the facts. History, whichur is seems a lot of folks, young and old alike, they do not understand the issues. They do not understand history, economics, business. Consequently, a lot of kneejerk commentary and action. And reaction and as a consequence, you have a lot of these problems. If we study our history, we will find that our greatest moments have been would we have been decisive. We can go back to Teddy Roosevelt at fdr and prior and the great was did the job. Will seeaction and we how it plays out rather than sitting and letting it happen. Host the Las Vegas Review journal has a this story. A bill to remove netanyahu and five other nevada and five other states from nutty night court may be gaining favor. S s aanmirt