your thoughts on how the trump attorney in this case handled himself. i thought he started to slow. but what we heard they are, really, at the last 5 minutes of the argument, i thought his points got stronger. the fact that you have the state of washington suing on behalf of their citizens and also, corporations, as compared to the scope of the order that applies to syrian refugees that may be trying to escape religious persecution, that have no connection to washington whatsoever. i think they finally made a good point. i think he kind of stumbled on that in the first part of his argument. but i believe he came back and redeemed himself. martha: sticking with that point, michael, the main contention here is that washington state has suffered irreparable harm as a result of president trump s executive order against the seven countries and prohibiting people temporarily from coming in who are not citizens to the country.
everybody was listening very intently to this. you feel like you can tell which way these judges are leaning. but you really can t, necessarily, can you? a lot of times, you can gather where a judge is coming from based on their questions. one thing that stretch me was the judge s insistence of how this executive order potentially violated the establishment clause. what struck me about this is that it goes far beyond the scope of the plaintiff s complaint overall. martha: for everybody at home, by saying that she is suggesting that it is discriminatory on the basis? she is getting into questions of whether this violates the establishment clause. if you look at the complaint filed by the plaintiffs, even they don t spend that much time on the establishment clause. they were speaking to something different. you saw her focus on that aspect of the case. that signaled a lot to me. martha: so, how do you separate that? how do you not to look at that, michael, as are coming into this
irreparable harm, per se, would be perceived. in fact, if there was a breach of the establishment clause. on your question, martha, again, president obama s national security team i security team identified to these seven countries hot spots. no father, mother, child, wants to have any one soul admitted by accident because a venting system is done improperly. the real question is, with indonesia, saudi arabia, 16 of the 19 hijackers healed from saudi arabia, it is as if the president targeted to seven countries, said to heck with the 11 million people in our backyard, then, we will get to everything at a later time. prohibited by the 1965 immigration amendment to the ac act. you are not allowed to discriminate against national origin. martha: michael, let me go to your take on that, too. i think that what you have here are two conflicting statutes, where one says that
martha: one of the other things, i want to bring in our panel to discuss this as well, michael, let me go to you on this. in terms of determining whether or not the list of countries that was first put forth by congress under president obama, the seven countries that were considered to be countries that presented a threat to the united states of america, so, why would it be given such different purview under this president, when that list has existed for some time? happen to agree and disagree with the judge. irreparable injury would be stated if the establishment clause was present to have been breached. whether we argue martha: explain that to everyone at home. speak of the establishment clause is saying that by default, the jewish and christian refugees would be given a leg up over muslims, as an exception to the vague order. article three says any alien from those countries, with the exception of article five or seven, minority or religion. the state is advocating that
qualified republican candidates and hillary clinton. the single issue that he campaigned on was immigration. martha: i hope senators, as they see themselves a mate tape, will ask themselves what they feel so differently on that issue that you have now brought up. senator tom cotton, very good to see you tonight, sir. many thanks. thanks, martha. martha: breaking tonight, if you are just running a scum of the court hearing has just wrapped up over the president sr restricting travel from seven countries. since the arguments ended about a half-hour ago come up reaction has been pouring in from all over. let s go quickly back to michael wiles. an immigration attorney, who now opposes the president immigration order. an attorney and former deputy counsel to the rnc and counsel in the office of legal policy of the justice department. welcome back. good have both of you with us tonight. christ, let me start with you. everybody was listening very