the tweet reads : it sounds like he just wanted some privacy to make his own dining decisions. is that appropriate, sir? look, when public officials go into public life, we should expect two things. one, that you should always be free from violence, harassment and intimidation. into, you re never going to be free from criticism or peaceful protests, people exercising their first amendment rights. and that is what happened in this case. remember, that justice never even came in contact with this protesters. reportedly did not see or hear them. and these protesters are upset because a right, an important rite that the majority of americans support was taken away. not only the right to choose, by the way, but this justice was part of the process of stripping away the right to privacy. as long as i have been alive, settled caselaw in the united states has been that the constitution protected the right to privacy. and that has now been thrown out the window by justices, including justice
the tweet reads : it sounds like he just wanted some privacy to make his own dining decisions. is that appropriate, sir? look, when public officials go into public life, we should expect two things. one, that you should always be free from violence, harassment and intimidation. into, you re never going to be free from criticism or peaceful protests, people exercising their first amendment rights. and that is what happened in this case. remember, that justice never even came in contact with this protesters. reportedly did not see or hear them. and these protesters are upset because a right, an important rite that the majority of americans support was taken away. not only the right to choose, by the way, but this justice was part of the process of stripping away the right to privacy. as long as i have been alive, settled caselaw in the united states has been that the constitution protected the right to privacy. and that has now been thrown out the window by justices, including justice
illegal immigrant illegally enters the country a second time with an aggravated felony, that immigrant will face a mandatory minimum prison sentence. the person who shot kate steinle had been deported five times. he had been in and out of jail. if caselaw had been on the books, the person who pulled the trigger would ve been in a federal prison cell instead of out there on that pier that night. and kate steinle would still be alive and with us today. the best thing congress can do is pass kate s law right now to prevent the next tragic murder we saw in california. dana: do you think the case was not well argued by the prosecution, would you support federal charges against him? i don t know. i have and examine the evidence that was presented at the trial and specific arguments that the prosecutor made, i understand the defense argued that the firing of the gun was accidental and the jury heard those arguments. none of that at the end michael
legal requirements? there is caselaw in the u.s. attorney s handbook that says it doesn t. the irs and fbi investigations, while critical, are not legal proceedings. eric: my concern is, when you have a republican senator invoking watergate at this stage of what s going to be a long, drawn-out controversy or discussion. mollie: what was interesting about this week was the resurgence of the never-trump republican. they had claimed they were dying after the election. what we ve seen this week is that s not true. the subtext is about foreign policy. you have people who really want to continue the foreign policy we ve had under democrats and republicans. donald trump is a threat to that. he s exhibited a desire for more restraint. john mccain. makes perfect sense he would come out and make a big deal about this because he is so opposed to donald trump on foreign policy.
there is a lot more caselaw to fall on the side of the president then there is to fall on the side of campaign statements. martha: michele, that stuck out to me. jonathan turley and alan dershowitz both look at this may say, there is a lot of emotion around these judges decisions. but it will stand up. the president does have the right to ban entry from countries if he deems limbs to be a national security risk. it is a 1952 law. i think i have my mother is a minister and my dad is an attorney. my entire life i have been guided by two things, the law and our values. and the constitution has made clear that this executive order is fundamentally un-american. i think no matter what law you refer to, that is why you see these judges saying so clearly, it is a violation of our constitutional values. and that is why, when we see