And by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. Thank you. Whatever you think of President Trump, he is doing exactly what he said he would do. Many think his actions are at best xenophobixenophobic, at wo unconstitutional. Thomas saenz is head of one of the leading civil rights organizations. Im pleased to have him back on this program. How are you today . Under the circumstances, im doing okay, buddy. Its been a busy week. It has. What do you make of all the protests, all the signs, all chants in places across the country, indeed around the world . What do you make of what you saw . I think it apes strong indication that there is its a strong indication that there is no mandate for the actions donald trump has taken so far. I hope that it will cause him and his Legal Advisers to slow down a bit. There are serious constitutional problems about what hes done and what he intends to do. I think were going to see more protest unless theres a more considerate approach to all of these issues. I take your point that there may not be a mandate. His press Secretary Sean Spicer echoed others in the Trump Administration that the president is doing what he said he was going do. All vote for him, and hes doing exactly what he said he was going do. Whats wong with the politician doing what he or she said they would do when elected . What he was saying was so dangerous to the safety of our nation, so dangerous to the progress of our nation, and so untrue to our constitutional principles, thats the problem. One would hope that after a candidate campaigns, once theyre in office and have access to Additional Information and advice, they would recalibrate their approach to issues to better reflect the best interests of the country. Whats your sense of whether or not there are americans tonight watching this program and others who are this early on already having buyers remote. They thought donald trump would be better than hillary but didnt expect this. I think have to think theres a great deal of buyers remorse already because hes not considered the implications for our nation, considering the implications of information he has access to. Moving forward without much thought to the law as well as the impact on people. Thomas, you do this work every day. Clearly theres an issue with the way immigrants are being vetted. Were talking about from which countries these persons are being mall treated. And the countries not on the list. Interestingly as you know, the countries have that have caused the most damage are not not on the list. Thats another conversation. What your sense of when the immigrants being vetoed, whether or not it will hold up constitutionally given that courts have been a state on the executive actions . I think the administration has reacted to the Court Numbers an unproductive fashion. The truth is theres reason behind several federal court orders. That is that the executive order doesnt seem to have a lot of connection, as youve suggested, to what are the best interests of the country. Putting in place a moratorium as quickly as this without any basis for the countries on the list, indeed any basis in what we should be vetting folks for rather than simply where they are from. That is too close an approximation to a muslim ban or a ban based on race or national origin. Thats going to end up with longterm problems in court. We should be making decisions based on national security, our interests in Foreign Affairs. Obviously this has a negative effect in that regard, not based on pledges in a campaign or based on religious or racial discrimination. You used the term muslim ban. The president has pushed by on that vociferously. Mr. Spicer pushed back in a briefing saying it is not a muslim ban. They say its not. You say it is. What is it . If it looks like a muslim ban, if it is implemented like a muslim ban if muslims are being its a muslim ban. We know already that mr. Spicer has a rich history of creating alternative facts. And i think this may fall in that category. It seems the only think behind the sinking of this executive order was an interest in a muslim ban. There are at least two ways to read this in terms of how republicans have responded to this president. This is going to be the most fascinating part for me over the next four years, to see the box he puts them in on any number of issues and how they navigate the relationship. We know what we think of President Trump. We know at that left and progressives think. Yours is a nonpartisan organization. Im curious to see how republicans handle this. On this issue, this muslim ban that aint a muslim ban, there are two ways to read this. You have people like lindsey graham, john mccain, and others who have pushed back on this aggressively. This is not who we are. This is not the way this ought to be done, et cetera. Others have been silent. And others who have take ten the middle ground, taken the middle road, whatever that is. Paul ryan, not nearly as strong in his language as was mccain or lindsey graham. Whats your sense of how republicans are going to navigate this particular wish this president . I think this is a precursor for what theyre going to face time and time again with this president. When i think about it, this is going to be an exhausting four years for Republican Leadership in the house and senate. They are going to be in the exact situation youve described. Some are going to i think correctly say we dont want to be described this way, the way this policy depicts us. Others are going to tow a more traditional, supportive line just because donald trump has the same Party Affiliation as they do. And there are others who are going to struggle. Its going to happen help just on this issue but every time the president puts forth a proposal or order or implements a policy that will is in contention with principles, particularly those of nondiscrimination, that our country strongly supports. I asked this of a guest about a week ago on this program. And before all this stuff kicked in. The question i asked then which i want to ask again now although i think i have my answer, is whether or not this is going to be the most litigious presidency weve seen. That is to say that there will be more lawsuits filed every day for something that he does. Whats your read already of how litigious the next four years will be . Theres no question. Theres going to be a lot of court action where the defendant will be the United States of america and the Trump Administration. Its clear that he is going to aggressively embark on policies that folks with better legal advice would say you should opinion be pursuing. Its going to land in court for that. It a lot of public policymaking may be made by judges and in courts because we have a president who recklessly pursue the policies that have constitutional problems written on phlegm top to bottom. And to that end, we are told that tomorrow at 8 00 eastern time, the president will make his announcement of who his Supreme Court nominee will be to fill the seat left vacant by the death of antonin scalia. Everybodys speculating. We know what the short list looks like. To your point about stuff to be headed by the courts, how happy can we be on what the nominee is going to portend . We cant be happy about the fact that this nomination should have acted on close to a year ago. Justice scalia passed away last february. And president obama within his authority put forward a nominee that and duty. Not just authority, duty. Obligation. Absolutely. And the obligation on the senate was to give advice and consent to that nominee. They just derogated that completely and held off and held off in order to hand an appointment to donald trump. One would hope that having effectively stolen the seat the way the leadership of the senate did, they would look for someone who would be more moderate. But it doesnt appear that thats what were going get. Thats going to be troubling in a number of ways, especially if this is not a justice who grows on the court. Weve had justices, it as you know, who started out from a particular ideological perspective. But with the additional input of the next come before them have changed over time. Weve had others who have not changed. Weve got some there now who havent changed at all. Weve got to be looking for a justice who is more moderate and more responsive to whats going on around them. We are looking at a just whos probably going to a justice whos probably going to sit for decades and have to learn from the court. Before i go forward, thomas, there are any number of nominations starting with Jeff Sessions for attorney general, we had senator cory booker on this program a week or so ago who broke all sort of ranks and decorum by testifying against a fellow, a u. S. Senator. Theres pushback against Jeff Sessions as a. G. There are concerns about the education secretary nominee. Ben carson knows now about housing, most people believe. You watched the hearings, you get scared about this guy being the hud secretary, although i respect his brilliance as a brain surgeon. Im not sure thats the right position to for, but i digress. You have cabinet fights, the muslim ban that aint a muslim ban that to push back on. You got a nominee thats about to be announced in a matter of hours that theres going to be a fight about. I wonder how long or whether or not you think at some point democrats, the left, progressives, people of good conscience, are going to are going to experience resistance fatigue. Theres so much to resist, you get fatigue. And rather than resistance it turns into acquiescence. I think weve got to guard edens it. Weve got to keep the energy up and realize we cannot compromise on basic principles no matter how many times they may be challenged. The danger is we come to accept things that four, 10 years ago, 25 years ago would have been completely unacceptable in political discourse in this country. We cannot allow our discourse to be diminished in that way. Ill tell you, one of the things i dont think is getting enough attention, it you alluded to it. Weve got a cabinet that apparently has a latino ban. The First Time SinceRonald Reagan in the 1980s that there has not been a latino in the u. S. Cabinet. It comings at a time when loontsd it comes at a time when latinos are the margest Minority Group in the country and have been so for a decade. That is a tremendous step backwards and one that hasnt gotten enough attention. I cant imagine another president who would have been given a pass for not having the largest Minority Group represented in his cabinet appointments. Now its on the senate. Any senator who votes to confirm every one of his nominees is effectively saying that that senator thinks its okay and appropriate to have a cabinet at that does not have a latino or latina in it at all. Clearly the largest slice of latino voters in this country voted for hillary clinton. There were i dont need to call their names, you know them personally. I know them through my work here prominent republicans of latino origin who did, in fact, support donald trump. What do they say . In a moment where theres not a single latino nominated, what do those persons have to say . How do they defend this . Ive got to tell you, i dont know. I havent talked to them. I think they volleyball to be disappointed. Buyers remorse . Buyers remorse. They have to believe that part of the reason they chose to support him which was to ensure that latino voices were heard and could maybe moderate the more extreme latino rhetoric. Theyve got to be discouraged by that development. Out the gate, his first set of steps to make America Great again involved not having latinos in the cabinet. Thats not my definition of great. Yeah. So symbolism is one thing. And thats in part what you get with a cabinet secretary is symbolism. Symbolism does matter. I believe substance matters more. Hes fallen short of the symbolism of putting a latino in the cabinet. To the substance, the sanctuary cities, hes also falling short. For those who dont know what a sanctuary city is, explain that, and well go a step further and talk about his pushback against sanctuary cities. I think sanctuary city is a misnomer. It means cities that have taken steps to ensure that local Law Enforcement is distinct and separate from immigration enforcement. They do that for good reasons. The police need the cooperation of everyone in the community, regardless of their immigration status. And it doesnt do them any good to have a huge cohort of the community afraid to interact with police, when theyre victims or witnesses of crime. Dont want to come forward because theres too close a connection between local Law Enforcement and immigration enforcement. So having that clear line of no cooperation is what appears to define the sanctuary cities that trump and others are interested in going after. To me that makes no sense. It undercuts Public Safety in those cities where they depend on cooperation from the immigrant community. There are a number of big city mayors including the city were in, the city i sit in every night, it los angeles, Eric Garcetti, and others. Mayors who said clearly theyre not going to be cowtowed, not going to be buffaloed by the Trump Administration on this matter. Theyre not going to have their Police Departments running around trying to round up undocumented workers. Undocumented immigrants. Theres already some pushback on that from these leaders of these municipalities. Yet the Trump Administrations response essentially has been that well cut your money off. The money that you get for the federal government, we cut it off. Where is this fight headed . That is an impotent threat in his executive order. Donald trump cannot on his own decide to cut off money to cities based on their having policies to separate local Law Enforcement from immigration enforcement. That requires congress. And it is going to be one of those areas like the one you describe would earlier where i think theres going to be distance between trump and leaders of his own party in the house and senate. And its not clear how thats going to come out. I understand that there have already been moves, as you know, in congress to try to target some of these cities. When folks sit back and look at what the facts indicate and the facts, it as ive described them, accurate, that is local Law Enforcement needs cooperation. And it doesnt help anybody to undercut that cooperation. I think hes going to have a tougher road to get congress to approve cutting off money in those circumstances let me play devils advocate. The states have a majority of republican governors, but big cities tend to be for most part as you know, run by democratic mayors. Why does donald trump care . Why does he care what Eric Garcetti thinks in l. A. . Why does he care what the mayor of boston thinks . He should care, and i think the other leaders in the house and senate why should they care . Theyre republicans. Why should they care . Theres a lot of folks in those cities and folks go into the cities who tonigdont live. When they go in and realize lack of commitment from the community is going to affect Public Safety its going to impact everybody. When theres not cooperation with the cops, it means that citizens, visitors who are citizens, all kinds of folks are going to have their Public Safety implicated. Thats why i think there will be mushback politically. Beyond pushback politically. Beyond that, there will be constitutional questions about taking money away from cities for adopting policies. Localities have the right to adopt their own policies particularly with respect to things like Law Enforcement. So this is not by any means going to be easy. That executive murder is suggesting there was some real immediate threat to sanctuary cities was an overstatement. All right. At the top of the show, theres so much that happened over the last week, its hard to know where to start, how to navigate this. Were talking about the sanctuary cities in the u. S. What did you make of the president of mexico pulling the President Trump . Of course the president jumped in and said we mutually agreed not to meet. Thats not what he happened. He pulled the plug, the president of mexico. I think that president pena nieto had no choice. Theres hot tilt in hostility against President Trump from the campaign and dramatically reinforced by the executive orders that he planned to issue before meeting with the president of mexico. If that doesnt demonstrate faulty reasoning whether it comes to Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy, i dont know what would your first week in office. The president of mexico at the moment happens to be our neighbor. Im curious as to your take what happens long term when he continues to, for lack of better phrase, ruffle the feathers of World Leaders and they start pulling the plug on important meetings, on important collaborations, what is what does that land the country when the president has tetatetes with other . Leader in other leaders . A society so connected worldwide, its a major problem when you precipitate those kind of fights with other countries. More important than the problems with prime ministers, the problems with foreign ministers, the problems with president s of other countries, it generates opposition in the populus of those countries around the world which will generate hostility toward the American Government at least with potential implications for our economy, particularly our ability to successfully market goods made in the United States around the world. There are clearly implications for our economy. Theyre also to my mind, helpth, irchl cas implications to our safety. I wonder what you about the booring moves by the president is creating a greaters sense of hostility around the globe that could contribute to a terrorist attack . That is my fear. The steps hes taking to alienate the rest of the world, particularly portions of the world where there are resentments toward the United States, can only exacerbate the problems. I go back to when former president bush had his bring it on moment, and it ended up that we were mired down for years and years into the obama administration. Its that kind of hubris, that kind of overstatement, that kind of defiance that creates problems for us around the globe. It is not an appropriate way to run Foreign Policy in this day and age. You mentioned earlier that the president doesnt have a planet to do the stuff hes doinging a mandate to do the stuff hes doing, theres no mandate. Trumps argument is he would have had a mandate to the extent he believes heap doesnt, he would have had a mandate had he won the popular vote and electoral college. His argument is that he did not win the popular vote, as you know. There are millions of illegals who cast votes against him. And thats the only reason why he didnt win the popular vote. Im laughing, but he said its what do you make of of this . Thats just an alt facts, altright fantasy. Theres no other way to describe it. Theres not a shred of evidence that theres kind of voter fraud going on. To the extent theres any demonstrated voter fraud, were talking about isolated instances of a few voters. To say nothing of his assumption that the voter fraud only goes one direction. Hes never explained how that is the millions of votes only went against him and not in his favor. Im not clear on how that works that way. Its all simply a fantasy designed to intimidate voters, designed to intimidate potential voters from participating in the future. Thats why weve got to push back against it. Theres absolutely no basis for taking further steps to suppress participation. Theres no basis for saying to certain potential voters that theres some danger for them in exercising their right to vote. So weve got to ensure that the message is the opposite. Weve got to have more participation, not just in the 2020, but in 2018 at the midterm elections and in the local election in states like virginia and new jersey. Weve got to have folks participating in higher and higher numbers, had not to be intimidated by this altfact fantasy that they put forward. Speaking of alternative facts, when the president s spokesperson is pressed on data, pressed for those facts to back up the insane arguments that they advance, and the press secretarys response is the president believes what the president believes. Thats a quote, the president believes what the president believes, how do you fight back . How do you push back when its not really about the facts, its not about the truth, its about the president believing what the president believes . Well, you push back by hoping that there are other officeholders in positions of authority in congress, for example. In the states. Also hopefully among those he appoints and puts in position of authority that will base their decisions on facts and not ungrounded beliefs. Making decisions on ungrounded beliefs is irresponsible. I think we know that. Youve got to get the intelligence. Youve got to get the facts. Youve got to get the science and make your decisions based on the best interests of the country using those facts, science, intelligence, at your disposal. One of the greatest things about our country and being president of the United States is that you do have access to so many important facts, so many sources of intelligence, so many good sources of advice. If youre not acting on those available sources, then you are disserving the country. And we should all recognize that. So i want to go back in the two minutes i have left to an issue we raised earlier. That is this notion of how long before many fellow citizens just are burdened by this resistance fatigue because hes doing so much stuff so fast. One of my beliefs is i dont have data to back this up, my own tavis believes what tavis believes. And what tafits believes is simple tavis believes is simply this one of the reasons the president is moving so fast on this is strategically about wearing them down. Wear them down. If you keep hitting them every day with tweets and executive orders and keep hitting them, you wear them down. At some point, they get weak, and you win. I think that hes going to get worn down. And some of those who are supporting him currently are going to get worn down, as well. I also think hes underestimating the resiliency and strength and the hope in our communities across the country. We saw it in the womens march. Were going to continue to see it manifest. The womens march was 2. 5 months after the election. Well keep seeing this. I think theyre underestimating the American Public if they believe theres going to be any letup in defending constitutional principles and values fli countin this country. The question is whether or not you think the pushback could be sustained until the midterm elections when you have a chance at the National Level at least to send a strong message to the white house. I dont think we have a choice. I think we can sustain it. I think were seeing levels of involvement and engagement that are unprecedented. And that will just continue to ratchet up. Its a long road ahead. You are ready. We can do this. And you are right. We can do this. And as a nation we will preserve our Constitutional Values and principles against any president or worother who threatens them. On that note, so much more that talk about in the days, weeks, and months ahead. If this is the pace hes going to operate at, well be having these conversations it seems like nightly. Tonight we thank the president and general counsel of maldef, thomas saenz. Thanks for watching. Good night from los angeles. And as always, keep the faith. For more information on todays show, visit tavis smiley at pbs. Org. Hi, im tavis smiley. Join me next time for a Mary Tyler Moore tribute with dick van dyke. Thats next time, well see you then. And by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. Thank you. Be more, pbs. Be more, pbs. Today on americas test kitchen becky makes perfect saltandpepper shrimp, jack challenges chris to a tasting of szechuan peppercorns, and julia prepares vietnamesestyle caramel chicken with broccoli, right here on americas test kitchen. Americas test kitchen is brought to you by dcs. Dcs manufacturers of professionally styled indoor and outdoor kitchen equipment