The court does say that in the particular kicircumstances of h phillip was treated, his religious views didnt get the respect of the commission that initially ruled against him. He cites Commission Members that said appeared to be dismissive or hostile to Jack Phillips religious views. The 13r50eSupreme Court this w marred as soon as the Commission Said those things. All the Court Decision today says is, because of the way Jack Phillips was treated below, he wins. But the decision also says, were not expressing a view about the larger issue that made this case so interesting. Which is, can other bakers, florists, people who print wedding invitations, who provide services, people who sing at weddings, play the organ, do the deejay services, all those businesses, can they refuse to serve samesex couples . Has written all the important gay rights rulings here from the Supreme Court, including the 2015 ruling on samesex marriage. With that in mind, he basically is saying, we have to keep t
you do national emergency. and then other people say oh, if you use it for this, what are we using it for? we got to get rid of drugs and gangs and people. it s an invasion. president trump trying his n declaration which is facing a flood of legal challenges. joining me now is democratic strategist sarah riggs and justin saffe. good morning. sarah, what you do think? he pointed to past national emergency by past presidents. is that a fair comparison? no, it is not, phillip. you have seen bbipartisan suppot in past measures, but he will face opposition from within the party. certainly with the comments from susan collins yesterday and other republicans have given us the indication they are not fully on board. i think the powers in the
ryan, sir? who speaker ryan. let s not talk about it. what difference does it make. they should have pushed it faster, pushed it harder and they didn t. reporter: what difference does it make. later the president did call out paul ryan by name. phillip that s the state of play this morning as the dawn almost is getting ready to rise over washington. mike, thank you. joining me now political reporter and from business insider with politico. thank you both for joining us. first i want to listen to what may become a central piece of the legal challenges ahead for the president s declaration. i could do the wall over a longer period of time. i didn t need to do this. but i rather do it much faster. i didn t have to do it for the election. i already done a lot of wall for the election. 2020. and the only reason we re up here talking about this is
emergency for political reasons so how is this going to affect his case in court? the very end of that segment that you just played for donald trump clearly shows there s no emergency. boom. there goes that whole idea there s an emergency. there goes the idea that donald trump can actually use the national emergency act to be able to try to, you know, basically divert funds and construct this border wall. phillip, really what s happening now as we know a lawsuit has been filed as late as yesterday night. that lawsuit will be one of dozens if not hundreds of lawsuits that are going to be brought by private landowners who basically under the fifth amendment of the united states constitution, they need to get just compensation for any type of private land that s taken for public use. the concept this will be resolved quickly is completely not reality. it is going to be winding its way through the court system for years to come. donald trump has a rude awakening. we saw yesterday there w
the court does say that in the particular kicircumstances of h phillip was treated, his religious views didn t get the respect of the commission that initially ruled against him. he cites commission members that said appeared to be dismissive or hostile to jack phillip s religious views. the 13r50esupreme court this w marred as soon as the commission said those things. all the court decision today says is, because of the way jack phillips was treated below, he wins. but the decision also says, we re not expressing a view about the larger issue that made this case so interesting. which is, can other bakers, florists, people who print wedding invitations, who provide services, people who sing at weddings, play the organ, do the deejay services, all those businesses, can they refuse to serve same-sex couples?