that is islamic and discriminate against them. and other organizations. i think it s a stretch. i don t think the supreme court is ready to stretch. it s a bad order but it may very well be at least in part constitutional. professor raises another point, what does the government does what is the legal available set of actions and how they do it. according to the challenger in the lower court one of mistakes was the roll out of the ban, there s precedence for the idea people who investor conever com country, have no due process right which is to say a lot of this would be defensible by saying no one can sue about that, as the professor mentioned
standing this loss, he has a chance of partial victory in the case goes to united states spro supreme court. if he satakes himself at his ow word, that s an option. it cannot live with an order that s been su spened, that gives him an immediate opportunity to protect us rather than putting this off maybe even months and can during that he is arguing we may have a terrorist attack. do soimething about it. write a new order. i think the professor has a point.
that 5-year-olds may not aba threat to launching an attack. which goes to georges point, you pick off little items because we can t do co comprehensive. president trump see the writing on the wall, come up with a bipartisan plan to keep us safe, he has been part of this for a long side, every time i see one side asking for bipartisan, i think where were you. this is the first test of a president who has been ruling by executive order. and undue some of those things done by executive order by
they make a point which is how broad is this, who has the right to challenge it. i m reading from the opinion, even if claim based on due process right were not part of this case, this state continue to have potential claims about the rights of other persons in the united states. translation, even if the trump administration according to this, had narrow aspect of this order there s still the right and the standing in the view of this court of other individuals to sue on it. that s important because it s subject in this appeal ruling, that these judges say, they can be challenged in court. there s standing. let s go to pete williams: pete. one oefther thing i would ad one of the government s argument the court had to but out. they could not second-guess what