extensively. could you respond to the government s argument? absolutely. that the two statutes need to be read separately? judge paez, you have it exactly right. let me set out exactly what the argument is. that the president is claiming a sweeping power, essentially to set aside the ina. in fact, the president refers to, quote, an absolute right to ban any group or anybody that s in the brief in page three. if you read it that way, if you listen to what mr. wall said, you are giving the president the anlt to take a magic eraser to the entire united states code with respect to immigration and nullify anything because of this 1182 provision. that can t possibly be what the statute is about. there are four problems with the statutory argument. one is what you were just referring to, swrunlg paez, about 1152, nationality based discrimination. three other things. congress finally reticulated
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
give the president the ability to say then you have to defer to me. i don t think it s zrimt discriminatory which, by the way, he hasn t exactly said. immigration restrictions being used to establish a religion. that s actually what happened in colonial virginia. the best way to think about it this is what supreme court says. think about what an objective observer would view this as. the best evidence is, i think judge paez reported to this, amicus brief after amicus brief. i m not aware of any case like this in which so many amicus brief representing such a wide swath of life said this is an establishment clause violation, 17 states including states like iowa, north carolina. over 30 cities and counties, including seattle, los angeles, new york city, san francisco,