This is something the president predicted was right was never a legal basis for this, correct . President trump won the legal argument today. And the Supreme Court came out on his side and lifted the stay that the Appeals Court put in place. But the legal argument was never the strongest argument against the ban. Its the policy argument. Really bad policy. Tucker will you concede that there was a legal argument against it, that the left as a group made and it was that a single judge in hawaii had more power over americas Foreign Policy and control of americas borders than the president did and the Supreme Court today said thats absurd. It wasnt just hawaii, tucker. There were a number of court cases in a number of courts that stayed this travel order. And it was a close call legally. It was a close call for the Appeals Court that upheld the stay. It was also a close call for the Supreme Court. Tucker the president has got a right to make judgments like this and enforce them with law. T
Thats why we have a president. You will concede that. I think thats a valid argument and thats the argument that was made. Thats one of the arguments that persuaded the Supreme Court today. Although, keep in mind, that the court only lifted the stay. It will hear the merits of the case in october. But, yes, you are right. But, as i said, the stronger argument against this travel ban is its really bad policy. It doesnt accomplish the goal which is notomake america safer. Tucker it doesnt. You would argue the counter case that the more immigrants that we have from say somali coming into the country the safer we are . What point are you making. What i would argue on Policy Grounds this ban is both too broad and not broad enough. Let me explain. Heres why its too broad. It denies muslims from six predominantly muslim countries. Tucker let me stop and correct you. It makes no reference to religion at all. It doesnt badge muslims. It bans people who live in six countries the Obama Administra
see if that was still pretty current. i noticed ted cruz himself not too long ago had talked about the second amendment in just that way. i said it would be worth illustrating this is what that looks like if that were to be carried out. did he actually say that? did he actually use that as justification? he is dead. i don t know. tucker: see, this is very much like lee harvey oswald, who defected to the soviet union, a self-describedov communist, murders the president and somehow the right is to blame for it? hate in dallas? tucker, i don t think the right is to blame for this. the right is not to blame for this.ri tucker: of course, this is about hate. no, the guy was an avowed communist. o this guy was an avowed bernie volunteer. that s not what this was about. tucker: all spun up about politics. that s why he did it? what do you think the purpose of the second amendment is? what is your own opinion of the second amendment? just for target practice or hunting? tucker: i
the tier ran call government. did i some searching around to see if that was still pretty current. i noticed ted cruz himself not long ago had talked about the second amendment in just that way. i said it would be worth illustrating this is what that looks like if that were to be carried out. did he actually say that? did he actually use that as justification? he is dead. i don t know. tucker: see, this is very much like lee harvey oswald who defected to the soviet union, self-described communist murders the president and somehow the right is to blame for it? hate in dallas? tucker, i don t think the right is to blame for this. the right is not to blame for this. tucker: of course, this is about hate. no, the guy was avowed communist. this guy was an avowed bernie volunteer. that s not what this was about. tucker: all spun up about politics. that s why he did it? what do you think the purpose of the second amendment is? what is your own opinion of the second amendment? just
think again. the latest example of of corporate censorship up ahead. plus, bernie and jane sanders presented them asstselves as antidotes of corrupt parties. why are they facing an investigation by the fbi for possible branchepossible bank whoooo.