Talked to his Attorney General yet. Thats right. Reporter i had a chance to catch up with kellyannec conway. I asked her whether or not the president views this decision as some sort of set back or defeat. She didnt exactly answer that question, but heres what she had to say. This is a defeat . Do you see this as a setback . He sees it as the statute provides a president with great latitude and authority to protect the citizens and protect the Nations National security. This was not argued on the merits. Now that well have an opportunity to argue on the merits, we look forward to doing that. I think his tweet was perfect when he said, well see you in court. There you go. Some confidence being expressed by Kellyanne Conway at the white
house. Not a lot new in terms of arguments being laid out by the white house in response to this, just the very tough talk that were going to see you in court. That is not exactly going to win the day at the Supreme Court. I asked Kellyanne Conway, is thi
in yemen never met who has been in the united states. alan, the court just dismissively saying, yes, we have standing. they didn t go into it which is one of the key issues there. the state of washington did not have standing. of course. the government fell into the trap by saying that there was no possibility of review here. of course, the court has the power to review. you never tell a court that it doesn t have the power to review and expect that they are going to remain silent in response. also, the establishment argument is not a strong argument. here you have seven countries picked by the obama administration. we do have islamic extremism and terrorism. so you pick seven countries that are all mus him. is that surprising? should they have been in armenia to avoid the idea it s an establishment? i think the argument on the merits will probably prevail in the supreme court. that is the trump argument and may well prevail but take them too much time to get there.
another executive order, goes to the supreme court, do you think the issue of standing is going to be primary? i do. and i think that the supreme court will not accept the lower court s rulings on standing. this is the most extreme extension of standing i ve ever seen. it gives the state of washington standing to raise constitutional issues on behalf of a family in yemen who have never been to this country and are coming for a tourist visa. it s a stretch. also the establishment argument which would give standing because the establishment clause is limitation on government, it s hard to say there s an establishment of religion here because they picked seven terrorist nations that happened to be nations that are involved in islamic extreme terrorism and giving preference to religious minorities. the refugee act in 1944 gave
1944 we passed the war refugee act which specifically was designed to rescue a hundred thousand jews and everybody knew the purpose was to rescue jews, that didn t establish judaism as the state religion of the united states. i think the establishment argument will fail in the supreme court. i think the standing arguments may fail in the supreme court. so they have won a very, very solid preliminary victory. i think they ll win if they taken a argument to the supreme court. by the way, if they re smart, they won t appeal this to the supreme court, they ll wait for a case from another circuit which may come out the other way. then there s a 4-4 split in the supreme court it goes in favor of the trump administration rather than against them which the ninth circuit opinion is likely to do. but i don t think logic is prevailing in the white house or in the justice department these days. they re not getting good legal advice. they re not following subtle sophisticated legal proceedings, the
campaign about banning muslims. and rudy giuliani told us the president came to him and said how do i do this in a way that doesn t violate the law. so there s concern about intent. back to the obama administration, after san bernardino congress sought to impose further restrictions and there were some in congress who were looking at actually shutting down immigration, shutting down refugees. the administration had to work with congress and we were trying to keep this in check. and we focused on four countries out of the seven and there was no ban. what we did do was take away the possibility of people who had pass ports in those countries and other countries who could come in without a visa under the previous law, we took that right away, requiring a visa. but there was never any ban imposed by the obama administration. think back to the establishment argument. the constitution says congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. it is such an incredible stretch