it says the executive order was issued with a purpose to disfavor of particular religion despite the neutral purpose, we are inferring the motive of the people who wrote it based on i don t know, news stories, clairvoyance, our own deep insight into human nature. how exactly what they know that? that s kind of a reach, no? not at all. unfortunately the truth is there is an incredibly long trail of evidence from the president himself when he was a candidate, he pledged that one of the he thinks he would do as president was to enact a muslim ban. we look at all of this evidence on the campaign trail, and the executive order itself, statements made by the drafters afterwards, by the president, this is a highly unique case. where we can tell and it is clear under the law thatem there is intent here to disparage islam. tucker: is just hilarious
they were trying even harder to mask what was a religious hostility. this important victory for the state of hawaii and for the country of the united states of america. tucker: one of those with the attorney general of hawaii. president trump blasted the ruling. and said he will keep fighting for the executive order. a judge has just blocked our executive order on travel and refugees coming into ourck country. from certain countries.to the order he blocked was a watered-down version of the first order. this is the opinion of many. an unprecedented judicial overreach.
somalia, because it has a disproportionate impact on muslims. don t you think it could be a problem? i think that s really extreme.e. one thing you and i can definitely both agree on is that we want this country to be safe. we can agree on the rule of law. unfortunately, i m someone who is around these courts all the time, that s not how you get this outrageous boundary stretch. but what we got from these decisions the court said, your plaintiffs have a right to bring these lawsuits because of their connection to the united states. i see an executive order, that disparages islam. tucker: look.f you say that i am stretching it. if you had told any person youcu meet on the street two years ago that some judge would say that since somalis who have never been to this country are covered by the first amendment.
countries. pick a country, syria, yemen, somalia, because it has a disproportionate impact on muslims. don t you think it could be a problem? i think that s really extreme. one thing you and i can definitely both agree on is that we want this country to be safe. we can agree on the rule of law. unfortunately, someone who is around these courts all the time, that s not how you get this outrageous boundary stretch. but we got from these decisions the court said, your plaintiffs have a right to bring these lawsuits because of their connection to the united states. i see an executive order, that disparages islam. tucker: look. you say that i am stretching it. if you had told any person you meet on the street two years ago that some judge would say that since some mollies who have never been to this country are
decision. it says the executive order was issued with a purpose to disfavor of particular religion despite the neutral purpose, we are inferring the motive of the people who wrote it based on i don t know, news stories, clairvoyance, our own deep insight into human nature. how exactly what they know that? that s kind of a reach, no? not at all. unfortunately the truth is there is an incredibly long trail of evidence from the president himself for when he was a candidate, he pledged that one of the he thinks he would do as president was to enact a muslim ban. we look at all of this evidence on the campaign trail, and the executive order itself, statements made by the drafters afterwards, by the president, this is a highly unique case. where we can tell and it is clear under the law that there is intent here to disparage