did acknowledge to the house yesterday to the house homeland committee that in retrospect, they should have briefed the relevant chairs on the hill, they should have taken it a little more slowly. reporter: that s right, and he took the blame for that, andrea. he saidlook, this was my assessment. this was my opinion and judgment at the time. but i think what is so striking, andrea, to go back to your conversation with pete, is that you are hearing this very strong language from the president directed at these federal judges, and it s a real departure from what we ve heard from past presidents in terms of weighing in on a decision that is pending, and the question becomes, does this president respect and honor the separation between the judicial and executive branches? his press secretary, sean spicer, was pressed on that yesterday during his daily briefing, andrea, and he said he absolutely does, he underscored that point, but i would imagine that he is going to get asked tough quest
about an hour and a half from now and of course it s a very different tone than we heard from former president obama, for example, who was of course a constitutional law professor. i was in the rose garden once when he was asked about the decision on obamacare, which at that point in time was in the hands of the supreme court. interestingly, he did weigh in. some people thought he went a little bit too far in making the case he thought it was constitutional, but again, this rhetoric different, andrea, because it goes after the judges specifically. and remember president obama did blast the supreme court for the citizens united decision during his state of the union speech. we saw justice alito saying no, basically that didn t happen, mouthing those words. just briefly, pete, we re not going to get a whole lot of advanced notice. this is the kind of thing that they will post on the website? they will give no advanced notice at all. they ll issue their ruling and when they do we ll
before adequate? does it need to be pumped up? do these seven countries need to get special treatment? i mean these are the questions that substantive questions that were being considered. the government s argument here is yes they do, because three of them are state sponsors of terrorism and the others are in essence failed states. you can t exactly go to the dmv in those states and look for background and fingerprints for somebody who wants to come here for example as a refugee. and what the government is saying here is, you really can t second-guess the president s decision. that s one of the questions here. do the courts have any business butting in here? the president says no. the government lawyer in essence says no. the states say this is causing us harm, and w believe it s, the president acted beyond what the law allows him to do, in the way that he did it. so that s the ultimate question for the courts. what the ninth circuit has to decide is a very short, a very narrow ques
judges, and i ll comment on th will not comment on the statements made by certainly one judge but i have to be honest, that if these judges wanted to, in my opinion, help the court in terms of respect for the court, they d do what they should be doing. i watched last night in amazement and i heard things that i couldn t believe, things that really had nothing to do with what i just read, and i don t ever want to call a court biased so i won t call it biased, and we haven t had a decision yet, but courts seem to be so political and it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what s right.