At allowed thousands of travelers from these countries to come back into this country. The visas were honored and they were allowed back in. Now, the white house wants to put the brakes on that process and reinstate the temporary ban. The final part of the courts arguments are still underway. Fascinating. Lets listen. Lets look behind the National Security determination made by the president , where that determination, the four corners of that determination, are explicitly based on the congressional determination that the countries at issue are of concern and does not go beyond that. I thought you were using that as your main authority for the unreview ability. So, you are saying that is distinguishable . Im a little confused whether you are relying on those cases or not. We are definitely relying on them for the limits that courts review these things, these types of issues. I am adding that when you have the document itself, and that is the best evidence of the intent of the president , it relies exclusively on the calls made by congress and the administration in 2016 about the safety concerns presented by the specific countries at issue. That is the end of the inquiry and should be. In fact, the counsel for the other side, reference to the recent decision, and describing the law, the court clearly said that congress could have enacted a blanket prohibition on i think it was describing mandel on communist aliens. That is in here, we have the president making a categorical determination based on the identification of countries of concern. There is nothing strange. That is not the question that was asked earlier about what is the order said, no muslims. You have been analogizing two cases that were about people who were communists who advocated the overthrow of the u. S. Government. Are you saying that to the external evidence here, that is alleged, that the intent here was to ban muslims, is equivalent to that . If there were an executive order that prevented the entry of muslims, there would be people standing to challenge that. And i think that would raise establishment because, First Amendment issues. But that is not the order we have here. This order is limited to the countries defined by congress. On the refugee that was the motivation and plaintiffs had submitted evidence that they suggest shows that was the motivation. So, why shouldnt the case proceed, perhaps to see if that really was the motivation or not . We are not saying the case shouldnt proceed. But it is extraordinary for a court to enjoin the president s National Security determination based on some newspaper articles. And that is what has happened here. That is very troubling, secondguessing of the National Security decision made by the president. The notion that we are going to go back you deny that the statements attributed to then candidate trump and to his political advisors, most recently, mr. Giuliani, you deny those statements were made . The judge, i would note that the judge himself said that he wasnt going to look at campaign statements. That is a different point. I understand the argument they shouldnt be given much wait. But when you say, we are all on the fast track here. Both sides have told us this is moving too fast. Either, those kinds of statements were made or they were not. If they were made but they were made not to be a serious policy principle, i can understand that. But if they were made, it is potential evidence, a basis for an argument. I just want to make sure i know what is on the table. Those are in the record. I think my point is a little narrower. In the expedited procedure of a tro, taking this extraordinary action of halting this order, that the president determined was in the National Security interest of the United States, is an unwise course. It should be stated. If you thought there was a problem, it was too preliminary, if we let this go forward too preliminary injunction hearings, do you have evidence that you would present . I think we would definitely like the opportunity to present evidence back in the district courts. We also think that the scope of this lawsuit really needs to be can you tell us anything about the type of evidence you would present it so we can consider whether for further proceedings are needed . Not yet. But another point is, the scope of the suit and the injunction would really need to be narrowed, as the parties focused in on the actual harms. The harms that washington has cited focus on residents of washington. But the order goes way beyond that, to the areas of the most concern of the president , people who have never been to this country yet and have no connection to washington, no connection to the United States, and no claim of constitutional rights. Either on their own or through washington. If i can ask my colleagues to indulge me for a moment, that does raise a serious concern on my part. The scope of the order, most obviously, having to do with the lawful permanent residence, which the governments position is that they are not included within the scope of the order, i have to say, is there any Legal Authority for the counsel of the president to have power to instruct the other departments or to instruct us as to what the order means . The president cant amend the order but im not sure that the council of the president has that authority. So, why is it we should be looking at this preconceived order and why is it we should, rather than try to narrowly carve out the injunction you are asking for, those are practical problems, i dont know how i would write such an order. Why shouldnt we look to the executive branch, to more clearly define what the order means, rather than have to look through the lens of these interpretations . Like me make two points. One, the guidance from the white House Counsel is the definitive interpretation of the council. In the white House Counsel speaks for the president and his context. Second, and i will reply brief, at the very end of page 11, we had our suggestion for the kind of order that would actually address the harms identified by washington. I am going to read that. At most, the injunction should be limited to the class of individuals on whom the states claim rest. Previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future. That is the core of the harm they have identified. When we are talking about an injunction entered on such a preliminary basis, it should be limited to the claims that the state is making and not issued more broadly. If there are no further questions, i encourage the court to stay the injunction are too limited to the presentation of the state of washington. Thank you. Thank you, counsel, for your very helpful arguments. This matter is submitted. We appreciate the importance in this time sensitive nature of this matter and we will endeavor to issue our decision as soon as possible. Thank you again for appearing on such short notice. We are adjourned. The court for this session stands adjourned. Martha a lot they are. A lot to chew over. In moments, we will be joined by judge andrew napolitano, who i can assure you has plenty of thoughts on what we have just heard. But first, we have two experienced attorneys who were listening to these arguments live throughout the course of this whole thing as they unfolded. They were furiously taking notes and getting their thoughts down. Gentlemen, welcome, good to have you with us today. Let me start with you. Your thoughts on how the trump attorney in this case handled himself. I thought he started to slow. But what we heard they are, really, at the last 5 minutes of the argument, i thought his points got stronger. The fact that you have the state of washington suing on behalf of their citizens and also, corporations, as compared to the scope of the order that applies to Syrian Refugees that may be trying to escape religious persecution, that have no connection to washington whatsoever. I think they finally made a good point. I think he kind of stumbled on that in the first part of his argument. But i believe he came back and redeemed himself. Martha sticking with that point, michael, the main contention here is that Washington State has suffered irreparable harm as a result of President Trumps executive order against the seven countries and prohibiting people temporarily from coming in who are not citizens to the country. They are saying, our universities and hospitals, institutions, had people couldnt make it back. Therefore, we have suffered irreparable harm. Which seems on the face of it a pretty difficult argument. How do you think that went over tonight . I thought they did a wonderful job under the circumstance. If you follow the politics behind which president appointed which judge, what responses they were, the issues cut down to us, martha, on a measure of standing. Can a court, then, entertain a states interest in protecting its citizens or its green card holders, its dual nationals that are visiting sick relatives abroad, people who are working for amazon or microsoft in Washington State, foreign students that are there, do they have a greater right . We all know im an immigration lawyer i cant go into the American Embassy because the constitution, equal productions, stop our waters. There is an argument that that is proper or not. Here, the states are acting within the confines of america and the president s admirable lawyers, then, argue that we are focused more on trying to create a venting system to make sure that we are not going to be put in harms way. They are citing cases, my father who is an immigration professor retired, those kleindienst, the mandel case, marxists and communists, fundamentally, they were constitutional and statutory arguments made today. The question is, will they hold muster and we are all curious about what will happen with that. Martha lets open this up and bring in judge napolitano and get your thoughts on this. One of the argument that was made at the end is that because the Trump Administration, President Trump himself and others, they mention Rudy Giuliani, because another references, they made reference to a muslim ban along the way, that that sort of supersedes what is actually in the executive order, and a document that they are supposed to be discussing. How does that hold up . Judges get to ask whatever questions they want. But the questions were highly, highly out of place to ascribe to an executive order, statements of the president made when he was a candidate or statement that one of head advisors, Rudy Giuliani, made either when he was a candidate or after he had been elected. What was lost sight of here is that the only thing the court can examine as the four corners of that order. Because the order goes to Foreign Policy and because under our system, the president s primary and Foreign Policy, every benefit of every doubt goes to the president and his wording in the order. For them to ask, on was that he based the conclusions in the order, makes the same mistake that judge did and tries to substitute the judicial mind for the president ial mind, which is an inappropriate thing for judges to do. I wish it that the president s lawyer had hammered harder on that. He did at the very end. But he should have done and the first 30 minutes, as well. Martha in terms of this notion of irreparable harm, and most of these cases, people have been delayed, they have been detained. That is not comfortable. That is unsatisfactory. That is inconvenient. They were brought back in. People have delays for all kinds of reasons, and travel or immigration or getting visas over the course of history. Why would that be considered irreparable harm to these Technology Companies and these institutions . There is no case in which i am aware that can hold that kind of that can characterize that kind of inconvenience as irreparable harm. Irreparable harm is harm that cannot be roma need by ordinary means. My child is coming into the country with her parents, she needs a heart transplant operation, the heart they will put into her body is no longer there, she cant have the surgery. That is irreparable. It cannot be addressed by ordinary means. But because the students or academics were delayed, but because their president ial decision on Foreign Policy and national National Security can hardly be characterized as irreparable. Martha one of the other things, i want to bring in our panel to discuss this as well, michael, let me go to you on this. In terms of determining whether or not the list of countries that was first put forth by congress under president obama, the seven countries that were considered to be countries that presented a threat to the United States of america, so, why would it be given such different purview under this president , when that list has existed for some time . Happen to agree and disagree with the judge. Irreparable injury would be stated if the establishment clause was present to have been breached. Whether we argue martha explain that to everyone at home. Speak of the establishment clause is saying that by default, the jewish and Christian Refugees would be given a leg up over muslims, as an exception to the vague order. Article three says any alien from those countries, with the exception of article five or seven, minority or religion. The state is advocating that irreparable harm, per se, would be perceived. In fact, if there was a breach of the establishment clause. On your question, martha, again, president obamas National Security team i Security Team identified to these seven countries hot spots. No father, mother, child, wants to have any one soul admitted by accident because a venting system is done improperly. The real question is, with indonesia, saudi arabia, 16 of the 19 hijackers healed from saudi arabia, it is as if the president targeted to seven countries, said to heck with the 11 Million People in our backyard, then, we will get to everything at a later time. Prohibited by the 1965 immigration amendment to the ac act. You are not allowed to discriminate against national origin. Martha michael, let me go to your take on that, too. I think that what you have here are two conflicting statutes, where one says that you cant discriminate on the basis of nationality. Another that gives the president broad president ial authority, on who can come into the country. I dont think when president obama was limiting refugees from syria that we heard the state of washington making that argument. That is something we are hearing new today. Martha here with a very different viewpoint on the president s executive order, and aclu attorney for more than two decades and is an adjunct professor at columbia law school. We welcome. Your thoughts and what we heard tonight. It was a vigorous argument. I think both lawyers did well. Tough circumstances. I think the judges got it right and pushing back on the u. S. Government and saying, we cant meaningfully review with the president has done. We cant look behind the four corners. I disagree with the judge, his prior statements, that standard law, the president cant get away with discrimination by simply come at the last minute, taking out some words. So, the Supreme Court has made clear that you always have to figure out with the intent is. Beyond the intent, even on the face of the order, talks about minority religions and majority religions, that kind of picking and choosing between religions, whether it is your denomination or not, has always been martha let me jump in. The white house is arguing that the president has the authority to protect the National Security of the country. So, this president used a list that was generated by the prior president , in terms of seven countries they believe proposed threats. There is no mention of banning muslims in the executive order. You can talk about a million different elements of something but then, you put together your document, and you presented. You say, this is our order. Why would anything else the relevant other than the order that has been presented before the court to determine whether or not the president has authority to make it order . For the very reason the Supreme Court has explained, you dont want the government doing Something Like that or taking out words of the final moment if you know the clear intent. It is not just a couple of statements. It was repeated statements over and over. Even after he signed the order saying, the minority christians, the minority religious provision is to benefit christians. One of the point that was made today, it takes time to make your case. I think washington will make its case and the aclu will make its case about that this was ultimately discrimination. All that was at issue here is something fairly narrow. Who is going to suffer more irreparable harm in the interim . It was not this mere inconvenience. It was people being held for a day and a half. It is also refugees stuck overseas who are in real danger, who have been extensively vetted for months, who are ready to come, who helped the u. S. Military, and now, they are stuck. Martha they are not stuck any more. Lee gelernt, thank you very much. Good to have you with you tonight. Joining me now will come as Sarah Huckabee sanders. She is Deputy Assistant to the president and Principal Deputy press secretary. Good to have you here tonight. Your reaction and what was it like inside the white house, no doubt, you were all watching this and listening to every bird that just transpired . What you think . We are still watching this really closely. The bottom line here is that we think at the end of the day, we are going to prevail in this case when its based on the merits. Look, with the president did was completely legal, constitutional, and frankly, necessary to keep americans safe. That is the number one job with the president of the United States, is to keep the people of our country safe. He is taking action to do that, just as he promised to do, and judge said the people elected him to do. He was overwhelmingly sent here to do a job and he is frankly doing exactly what he was elected to do. Martha you heard the questions from the lawyers. How do you think the attorney for the white house to tonight . I think they are doing a great job up against a tough battle. Again, i think the biggest thing we have on our side isnt with the attorneys or judges, it is the constitution. The president has every right to do what is necessary to protect americans. He is doing that by making this executive order. Martha you heard the arguments and they went back and presented evidence, essentially, statements by the president saying that we needed to have a muslim ban, he was going to enact a muslim ban. Then, the Rudy Giuliani statement for he said the president asked him to figure out a legal way to enact a muslim ban. These statements are coming back to haunt the situation. What is your reaction to that . I think it is real simple. Look at the executive order that was signed by the president. I dont think you can take outside statements to be what was in this executive order. I think you can only judge it based on what was in the executive order that was signed by the president and that executive order completely legal and constitutional. Frankly, his job, i think he is doing exactly what he needs to do as president , that is to protect the American People. We are at war against isis. We cant allow our borders to be open for anybody to come in here and cause harm and hurt the citizens of america. He is standing up for those people and doing exactly what he said he would do. Martha sarah, let me ask you this. If the white house loses at this level, and the ban cannot be reinstated, and that border is open to the seven countries for some time, there is a potential for this to go to the Supreme Court. Are you concerned about what that means for the nomination process for judge gorsuch . I am not. I think neil gorsuch stands on his own merits as very qualified. I think we have had quite a few democrats that have even come out and said that very thing. I think he is on very good standing. Anybody that fights him over Something Like this is at their own risk because it would show the politics that are being played. Too important to play politics with. Martha regardless of his qualifications, both sides have acknowledged, as you say, by putting them on the court, it is going to most likely, based on his history and based on the belief that he is and Antonin Scalia replacement, he is an appropriate replacement for him in terms of his judicial thinking, this is likely to go your way. That would mean, politically, it is on their side to delay, delay, delay, to the greatest extent they can. One of the reasons that neil gorsuch as respected is because he respects the constitution. He knows his job wasnt to create a law, it is to interpret it. That is exactly what he would do. The president has followed the law. I hate to sound like a broken record, but everything he has done is legal and constitutional and neil gorsuch understands that and that is one of the reasons he is so well respected because he follows the constitution. Martha politically, for the white house, some are saying, gee, this is a battle that maybe you should have picked down the road. Maybe you should have waited until you got your guy in the Supreme Court before you went into this extreme vetting mode. Perhaps, there were other things that should happen first. Is it bad timing . I dont think protecting the American People is ever bad timing. I think the president made an executive and decisive decision to do what he thought was best to protect americans. I dont think that can never be bad timing. In fact, i think it may not have been done soon enough because everything you can do to protect the citizens of this country as president is one of your top priorities. Frankly, the biggest job you have. Martha there is a new poll that shows that this issue, at least in this one pole, is moving in a not so great direction for the white house. It says, suspending immigration from some regions, even if it means turning away refugees, do you support or oppose . 50 say they oppose that. Now, back before the inauguration, that number was reversed. People felt that they were supportive of that action. What does that say about how the messaging has gone on this whole thing . I think there has been other polling also that shows that there is a lot of widespread support for this. Again, i dont think you can base decisions of National Security on polls. Frankly, it is far too important to look at defending the people of this country, protecting the citizens, and basing that on a poll. The president is doing what is right in protecting our country, protecting our borders, and making sure that the people that come in here, want to be here for the right reasons and not to do us harm. When you are at war with radical islam, you cant look at polling. You have to look at what is right and what is protecting our country. Martha today, general kelly testified and he basically took the blame for the rollout of this whole program. He said, i should have postponed my trip. I should have talked to congress about this first. This is my fault. It does not line up with your experience in all of this . I have so much respect for general kelly. I think there were some things from his angle that he feels like he could have done better. Again, i think that this has been a necessary measure and i think it was done as properly as possible in terms of letting all of the parties that needed to know aware of the situation ahead of time. I think it is actually gone relatively well, considering how well it worked up until we had a judge in washington going against the constitution and banks and radical decisions. Martha i have to say, of all of the tweets that we get here, one of the biggest questions that is always asked is when is the president s cabinets going to be in place . I think it is a question for Senate Democrats. They need to get out of the way and quit playing politics with our countrys future. It is absolutely ridiculous that they have blocked so many of the president s extremely qualified cabinet members for the sake of politics. They need to get on board and support the president , support these very qualified people, or at least allow the vote to take place so that we can start moving forward and let donald trump do with the people overwhelmingly elected him to do. Martha Rex Tillerson god through a secretary of state and he has his work cut out for him. A lot of people to hire at the state department. He got the largest number of votes against him in history of the secretary of state nominations. Betsy devos, that required Vice President pence to cast the deciding vote for her because two republicans decided they would not get in line with the president s nomination. I mean, how tough has this process been for you all . How damaging is this process . The anger, the frustration, that you have on all of this, to your relationship with democrats and trying to get stuff done coming forward . I think democrats need to stop obstructing this process. Betsy devos was confirmed. We are really excited about the type of reform and progress she is going to bring to the department of education. I think it was a big victory for kids all across America Today and their parents. As a parent myself, im extremely excited to know that we have some of that actually really cares about education in that place that will bring a lot of reform. I think secretary tillerson is an incredible pig. He has been confirmed. We are excited about the things that he will be able to do. We just hope that everybody else, hopefully, we can move through this process over the next couple of weeks and really started to focus on a lot of the vague reforms and the big changes that donald trump has been talking about, that the president will bring to washington. Frankly, what the American People are begging for. There is a reason he won. They believed in his message. They believed in him. Now, they need to allow his team to take their spot in the cabinets, so we can focus on these policies and reforms instead of the politics of the democrats are playing. Martha quickly, any reaction from the president to what we all listen to happening out on the west coast tonight . I havent had a chance to talk with him directly. So, ill leave that to him to let us know over the coming hours and at the morning. Martha Sarah Huckabee sanders, thank you so much for being here tonight. We appreciate it. Thank you, martha. Martha another battle that we are tracking on the immigration front, not from the white house, but from the senate. Senator tom cotton offering a new bill that prompted this headline from politico. Cotton and trump plot to crack on ilLegal Immigration. The senator wants to cut in half the number of people who come in illegally. It also eliminates the outdated diversity lottery inputs what he calls a the goal is 50 , which would be 500,000 people coming in per year in year ten. Here with me now, senator tom cotton. Good happy with us tonight. Thank you for being here. Good evening, martha. Martha this is the nestor kony and buy some. As it . [laughs] no, martha. Our president would allow an 500,000 immigrants with new green cards every single year. That is keeping with historic norms. Very generous if you look at other countries around the world. I think we need to get a Legal Immigration system that works for American Workers. Over the last several decades, we have seen wages stagnate for blue collared workers. We have record numbers of low skilled immigration. I think those two things are directly connected. We will focus on American Workers first. Martha so, you want to lower the number of people coming and in order to improve the opportunities for citizens of the country in lowtomid wage jobs, right . Thats right, martha. Only about one in 15 immigrants coming in today are coming in because they have demonstrated skills or because they have demonstrated economic need. Most of the people coming into our country come in because they are a distant relative of a current citizen or a recent immigrant, coming in under the outdated lottery or as a refugee. They dont have the kind of high skills our economy needs. Otherwise, they would come in through a high skilled program. They directly compete with High High School graduates. That means that they will beef fewer jobs for those american citizens and lower wages. Martha we have become so divided in this country left and right on this issue, that everything that you are talking about, although, some may say it makes practical sense, most likely conservatives who would agree with you on this. Democrats and liberals would say that it is mean, essentially, that you are shutting people out. That is just not who we are as a nation. I want to take you back to the state of the Union Address by a former president in 1995 and get your thoughts. Watch. We are a nation of immigrants but we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately selfdefeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years and we must do more to stop it. [applauding] martha that is dick durbin and the glasses, sitting down, back in his seat, from a standing ovation. As he can see come across the entire room, democrats, republicans, on their feet, and what used to be a somewhat common sense notion about letting people enter the country. Your thoughts . I know, martha, it sounds like more common sense from another arkansas politician when i heard bill clinton speaking there. [laughs] i think both parties should be focused on what is best for american citizens. That is our job as elected officials, to look at the best interest of american citizens. As president clinton says and those are marks 20 years ago, our immigration system right now does not serve the interests of american citizens, certainly people who work with their hands. Martha what has changed . Cynics would say it is about votes, it is about bringing in more democrats, what has changed so dramatically since 95 . In 1995, 1996, that was the last time there was a concerted effort to get a hold of our Legal Immigration system. This is an issue where elites in both parties, outside of politics as well, business, media, culture, are simply out of touch with working people, and places like arkansas. This is something that unites both parties leaders in some ways, regrettably. I think it is time that we pay heed to the results of last novembers election in which donald trump, for many different reasons, was able to be too many qualified republican candidates and hillary clinton. The single issue that he campaigned on was immigration. Martha i hope senators, as they see themselves a mate tape, will ask themselves what they feel so differently on that issue that you have now brought up. Senator tom cotton, very good to see you tonight, sir. Many thanks. Thanks, martha. Martha breaking tonight, if you are just running a scum of the Court Hearing has just wrapped up over the president sr restricting travel from seven countries. Since the arguments ended about a halfhour ago come up reaction has been pouring in from all over. Lets go quickly back to michael wiles. An immigration attorney, who now opposes the president immigration order. An attorney and former deputy counsel to the rnc and counsel in the office of legal policy of the justice department. Welcome back. Good have both of you with us tonight. Christ, let me start with you. Everybody was listening very intently to this. You feel like you can tell which way these judges are leaning. But you really cant, necessarily, can you . A lot of times, you can gather where a judge is coming from based on their questions. One thing that stretch me was the judges insistence of how this executive order potentially violated the establishment clause. What struck me about this is that it goes far beyond the scope of the plaintiffs complaint overall. Martha for everybody at home, by saying that she is suggesting that it is discriminatory on the basis . She is getting into questions of whether this violates the establishment clause. If you look at the complaint filed by the plaintiffs, even they dont spend that much time on the establishment clause. They were speaking to something different. You saw her focus on that aspect of the case. That signaled a lot to me. Martha so, how do you separate that . How do you not to look at that, michael, as are coming into this with sort of a predisposition to believe that this order was discriminatory . This is perhaps the most disappointing of all. The president , a patriot, as the president s before him, acted quickly and decisively to protect americans. This really belongs in the chambers of congress, not in the judicial chambers or halls with robes. Policy and National Security is something that should have a bit of quiet and a bit of pause do it and not be in the courts. Im completely disappointed in our emasculated congress in this respect. Its a sad day when this cannot be done properly. We see these beautiful, golden doors of america, not only being a heritage to our founding fathers, who established lawful means of coming to this country, but a great entrepreneurship, a great, rich, robust, vibrancy that we see martha this order in and out of it by itself is not stopping anyone from getting here. It is slowing the process down and reviewing the vetting process for how people come in. We need to have a better vetting process. Martha okay, this is what they are trying to do. This was not done constitutionally or judiciously. I am not saying that it shouldnt be done. Of course, it has to be done. There are 100 different ways to do it. Martha this is a Constitutional Order by the president. Is this an unConstitutional Order by the president . Whether you agree or disagree with this order, the fact of the matter is, here in this litigation, the state of washington has not proved that they have been harmed by the fact that a syrian refugee cannot get over to the United States. Whether you disagree or agree with this order, the fact of the matter is, this is not the litigation or the case to determine whether it violates the establishment clause. Frankly, the ninth circuit should issue a ruling that is far more narrow than that. I dont believe, martha, i disagree, chris. I dont believe the case is standing on the case of a syrian national, but the rights of those perfect on my permanent residence and visa holders who are working martha this order was placed on friday, january 27th. By sunday, green card holders and permanent residents were relieved. That was a 48 hour problem that they admitted was a mistake in the way that it rolled out. It was fixed in two days. How is that irreparable harm to anyone . It is not just the rollout. It is not just the damage control or the interpretation. The document itself, article three of the executive order, says anyone from. It has to be either recanted, retooled. In other words, doesnt talk about nationals and green card holders. It doesnt reflect well on the golden doors of america. Sweep down martha i am talkt who this actually affected. Gentlemen, thank you. It is a fascinating argument. Thank you for keeping a close eye on it with us tonight. What does all this mean for President Trumps Supreme Court nominee neil gorsuch . If this travel ban does go all the way to the Supreme Court, they would most likely be split 44, with judge gorsuch being the potential tiebreaker. This makes Senate Democrats gives Senate Democrats even more incentive to drag their feet on this nomination. Joining me now is mike huckabee. Governor, good to have you here tonight. Thank you, martha. Martha what is the impact on judge gorsuch from all of this . Let me first of all just say, you have had the smarter huckabee on. I will do my best to try to keep up here. Martha [laughs] i think the Supreme Court, if they get this case, i think there is a good likelihood they will, because the ninth circuit is just notoriously leftwing and biased and i dont think they will give donald trump a fair shake. Lets assume it will go to the Supreme Court. I think the court has a real challenge ahead of it if it decides to block the president authority. The court really has no business getting into the policy issue. Its not about whether they like it. Its about whether the president has the Legal Authority. Throughout the obama administration, they consistently made sure that the president had the authority to make sure such decisions. Then, they suddenly say, new president , new law, cant do that. There are a couple of congressmen, both texans, they both were judges. They left the bench, they became legislators. I would say to these judges in the ninth circuit, if you want to start legislating, take off your robe, stepped down from the bench, run for congress. Then, you can legislate. But you cant do that while you are wearing a black robe. With the president did was not put a stop sent to immigrants, he put a speed bump. He did that to protect the rest of us. I think a lot of americans are saying, thank god he did it. Martha in terms of the politics for judge gorsuch, clearly, this puts up a roadblock. Democrats are not going to want anything that hurries them along into this process at this point, knowing that this may lead to the Supreme Court decision. I think what it does, give the republicans even more of an incentive and justification for bringing judge gorsuch on the court with a simple majority vote. In other words, invoke the Nuclear Option on the Supreme Court nominee. Harry reid virtually pave that highway with gold in advance. Just to say, we cant have an obstructionist government, we have to have a full court. We are going to do it. I think a lot of people are going to recognize that the attempt to block the president from being the president that he was elected to be by an overwhelming majority of electoral votes, which is how we select the president , i think he is going to be able to justify that. I think the senate can justify it. Martha let me ask you this. We are 19 days then. What we have witnessed in a bigger way today is that the Trump Administration has already had its first runin with the federal court system. After only 19 days of being in office. Do you think they are going about this the right way . Or are these clashes, they are welcoming . Bring it on . Im going to be the contrary in. A lot of republicans are saying that he doesnt want to get into a fight with the court. I am glad that someone from the executive branch understands that when they passed ninth grade civics they remember there are three equal branches. The Supreme Court is not a supreme branch. It just isnt. It is an equal branch. It doesnt have the right to completely overturn both the legislative, which passed these laws all the way back to the 50s, and the executive, which is duly elected by the people. You have one judge in Washington State. Think about the fact that he was appointed by a president but for a district. He makes a National Decision that affects the entire country and goes against the entire congress and the entire executive branch. Does anybody think that makes sense . I mean, based on the most rudimentary understanding of what the balance of power is and checks and balances and equal branches should be, no, not in the world. Unless you want to say, lets play politics with the court. Frankly, we have been doing that since the 40s. I am thrilled we have a president that is recognizing that he does have some power. Martha bring it on is the answer to the question. Governor mike huckabee, thank you so much. I was good to have you here, sir. Coming up next, the already contentious relationship between President Trump and the media, could it be reaching a new wall . Charles hurt, mercedes schlapp, and matt bennett come here to weigh in on how the president is reacting to one particularly nasty, nasty charge. When we come back. It has gotten to a point where it is not even being important. In many cases, the very, very Dishonest Press doesnt want to report on it. Theres no party like a lobster party, and this is the lobster party. Red lobsters lobsterfest is back with 9 irresistible lobster dishes. Yeah, its a lot. Try tender lobster lovers dream and see how sweet a lobster dream can be. Or pick two delicious lobster tails with new lobster mix and match. The only thing more tempting than one succulent lobster tail, is two. Is your mouth watering yet . Good. Because theres something for everyone, and everyones invited. So come in today. What you wear every day actually making your body feel better, making your whole day better. Thats exactly what tommie copper does for people everywhere coping with lifes everyday aches and pains. They call it wearable wellness, and tommie copper has infused it into everything they do. Why not treat yourself well this new year . Go to tommiecopper. Com. Enter your email to become part of the tommie Copper Community and get 25 off your entire order. Well even throw in free shipping. Life hurts. Feel better. [and her new business i do, to jeanetgo. Jeanette was excellent at marrying people. But had trouble getting paid. Not a good time, jeanette. Even worse. Now im uncomfortable. But heres the good news, jeanette got quickbooks. Send that invoice, jeanette. Looks like they viewed it. And, tada paid twice as fast. Oh, shes an efficient officiant. Way to grow, jeanette. Get paid twice as fast. Visit quickbooksdotcom. When youre close to the people you love, does psoriasis ever get in the way of a touching moment . If you have moderate to severe psoriasis, you can embrace the chance of completely clear skin with taltz. Taltz is proven to give you a chance at completely clear skin. With taltz, up to 90 of patients had a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. In fact, 4 out of 10 even achieved completely clear skin. Do not use if you are allergic to taltz. Before starting you should be checked for tuberculosis. Taltz may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. Tell your doctor if you are being treated for an infection or have symptoms. Or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. Inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz. Including worsening of symptoms. Serious allergic reactions can occur. Nows your chance at completely clear skin. Just ask your doctor about taltz. Martha you have seen major issue about about the Trump Administration has gone through tonight. They are also waging a bit of a new war with the media. Largely brought in by the tax, it was one charge in particular from msnbcs katie curry yesterday that has raised quite a few eyebrows. Listen to this at home, prayed to as we know, there have been a couple dozen so suspicious deaths of journalists in russia. Donald trump has made no secret about going after journalists and made his distaste for any news that doesnt agree with him here. Do you find that this is a dangerous path he is heading down . Martha what is being suggested here . Charles hurt, mercedes schlapp, and matt bennett. Why dont you take that on first. It is a jaw dropper. I am not sure what she meant by that. I will say this. What about the president and his staff have done over the course of the last couple of months, since before the inauguration, is actually quite dangerous. They have denigrated the media over and over again. They have said that if there is news that they dont agree with, it is fake. That is a real problem. We dont want, in this country, do have the president telling people they cant trust with a c in any media. The only thing they can trust is coming straight out of his mouth. The thing coming out of his mouth often arent true. He routinely stretches the truth ar outright lies. We have to have the media trusted as a check on him just as we would in any other president. Martha must go back to the first thing first. Then, we will go back to the second part of your arguments. Charlie, the comments suggesting that there is a slippery slope that could be gone down and that vladimir putin, who has, by most reporting, had henchmen take out journalists and poison other World Leaders at a moments or leaders of revolutionary activities and satellite countries, but somehow, because President Trump has run into the media you better watch out, you might be on this same road. It is the definition of vacant news. She absolutely was comparing donald trump and his rough but often entertaining treatment of the process, comparing that to poisoning journalists . It is insane. That is why people dont have any faith in the media. It is not Donald Trumps responsibility to prop up the media and try to rescue their reputation, which is rightfully in tatters. It is the medias responsibility to do that. The perfect example is what she said right there. Martha mercedes, there is a lot of wounded egos around on both sides. The oppressive feeling that they are not getting a fair shake, the president is pushing back on them too hard. He feels he is not fairly covered. I think you can justify the claim that anything that is even slightly questioning how the administration is doing is perceived as a threat. It works on both sides. First of all, matt, im happy to send you the list of fake news items that have come out from so many of the Mainstream Media news outlets. I think what you are looking at here is the fact that the media itself has not yet recovered from this election. They really dont know how to handle this new political order. So, they spend their time continuing to make this comparison, for example, to donald trump and putin or donald trump and hitler. And it is just an unfair comparison. I think that the media should be, instead of trying to be telling people what they should think or what they should believe, just basically be able to be that check and balances on the government and on donald trump. But i think what we have found with the media is that they have gone too far. For her to go that far, it is out of balance. There is no if you cannot make that comparison. Martha if someone had suggested that president obama might eventually want to take out a reporter in a serious question to a member of congress, matt, can you imagine what the ramifications of that wouldve been like . What, im not defending what katie said. I think it did go too far. I will say, that just isnt right. The president himself was defending putin, as he has on multiple occasions, for reasons no one can quite explain. I can explain it to you i let you talk. He compared putin to the United States, when it was pointed out by somebody on this network that putin had murdered journalists i dont think you could have the president of United States calling a forward made or are demonizing a foreign leader, calling him a killer. It would not be an appropriate step for the president of United States to do that. I think President Trump is trying to accomplish, a better outcome, a better relationship with putin. This is not the first time that a president has wanted a better relationship with russia. We have seen that under president obama when he called putin a schoolyard bully. That doesnt work if you are trying to build relations of a foreign country. This president has attacked plenty of people as killers. He has talked about the leaders of iran, rightly, they are plenty of killers who run countries, including vladimir putin. When obama was trying to reach out to putin early in the administration, he was attacked by the right for that. What comes around goes around. My point, though, is that he was saying that putin is equivalent to the United States and the fact that he kills journalists. That is outrageous. Martha we have to leave it there. Thank you very much to all three of you. Good to have you here tonight. Matt, mercedes, charlie. We will take a quick break and be right back. Our custom fit orthotic to stabilize your foundation and relieve foot, knee or lower back pain from being on your feet. Dr. Scholls. Withevery late night. G. And moment away. With every click. Call. Punch. And paycheck. Youve earned your medicare. It was a deal that was made long ago, and aarp believes it should be honored. Thankfully, President Trump does too. I am going to protect and save your Social Security and your medicare. You made a deal a long time ago. Now, its congress turn. Tell them to protect medicare. Afoot and lighthearted i take to the open road. Healthy, free, the world before me, the long brown path before me leading wherever i choose. The east and the west are mine. The north and the south are mine. All seems beautiful to me. Itbut one i think with quesa simple answer. We have this need to peek over our neighbors fence. And once we do, we see wonder waiting. Every step you take, narrows the influence of narrow minds. Bridges continents and brings this world one step closer. So, the question you asked me. What is the key . Its you. Everything in one place, so you can travel the world better. But when we brought our daughter home, that was it. Now i have nicoderm cq. The nicoderm cq patch with unique extended release Technology Helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. Its the best thing that ever happened to me. Every great why needs a great how. Determined that the best course was a temporary halt and entry for 90 days while these procedures are looked at. That is understandable. The president comes into office with an obligation to protect the National Security of our country. Martha that was just one of the contentions exchanges from earlier tonight between judge Michelle Friedland of the ninth Circuit Court in the government, represented. At end of the hearing without announcing a ruling. They did say they will issue that decision as soon as possible. From that Tense Exchange to this joyous moment, just one more time, i promise. Patriots fans turned out in droves of despite the fact that it was pouring rain in boston. Congratulations to them. For the quote of the date, what else could we do but Bill Belichick . Mental toughness is doing the right thing for the team when it is not the right thing for you. On that, have a good night, everybody. We will see you back here tomorrow. Bill the Oreilly Factor is on tonight. You are saying that you are antimuslim, antiblack. Does it hurt your feelings that they are making you into a hater . Speak to how was President Trump handling all the personal attacks that come daily has way . Tonight, he will tell us. We had extraordinarily little opportunity to gather and present evidence. Bill a federal court of appeals right now evaluating whether it should resume the president s executive order on refugees. Well have the latest. Also, i had tonight, gutfeld and mcguirk on trump derangement syndrome