duff taos. you open the door to so much. i think islam hates us.is we can allow people comeing into this count who have thi hatred. rorter: and as president. this is the protection of the nation from foreign terrorists entering into the united states. we all know what that means. reporter: but the justice department says the current ban benefits from a lengthy security review and will try to convince the justices to focus on the president s authority and ignore his words. we shouldn t start down the word of psycho analyzing what people meant in the campaign trail. reporter: national security experts, lawmakers and one of the president s own lawyers tried to get in on the action filing amicus briefs, reminding them it could have historic implications even beyond this version of the travel ban.
and now the argument is back in court. who wins this round? they consult with them on the policies they develop. we shouldn t start down the road of psycho analyzing what people meant in the campaign trail.
well, it did it in a section called reviewability. to the extent that what washington said, judge paez, was mandel can t govern broad policy determinations. even plaintiffs don t try to defend that reasoning. i don t think this court should overread it. under that standard i m glad to hear counsel say we wouldn t be up here if it weren t just the campaign statements. those are not statements in an official capacity and don t tell you what the official objective is. people say things on a campaign trail and take an oath to uphold the constitution, form an administration and consult with them on the policies they develop. we shouldn t start down the road of psycho analyzing what people meant in the campaign trail. and then, judge paez, in answer to your question, down to a handful of statements. the only one that directly affects this order is the one that the president said we all know what that means. and in the presence of a newly sworn in secretary of defense