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
yet, according to a seattle radio show host dave roth hodgkinson may have been motivated by a conservative understanding the constitution believing his assassination attempt was a constitutional live protected use of violence to resist tyranny. there is a theory for you. dave ross joins us tonight to explain. dave, it seems to me like here s a guy who said exactly why he did what he did, pretty clearly. and yet, you re blaming the country and the constitution for what he did. not at all. no. when i saw that he was being described as a left-wing terrorist, essentially, i wanted to find out what motivated him to actually use a gun to carry that out. you are allowed to hate the government if you want to. where i draw the line, of course, is using violence against it. and it brought to mind the militia story which used to be a big topic years ago, right? this idea the second amendment is the last extreme protection against
but, the idea is to point out that when people who call upon the second amendment as the last resort against a tier ran call tier ral government. useful in this day and age in that way this is what that would look like. you talk about going up against the government. tucker: not what this would look like. well, of course not because steve scalise was not, you know a despots trying to control the life of hodges, that hodges hodgkinson. it? is absurd. i think you know, this that you will find plenty of sites on the internet that believe in that interpretation of the second amendment. tucker: it s the conservatives fault. i got it dave. nice try. no. tucker: pro-life group blocked from advertising on twitter because their message is too sensitive says twitter. do you think planned parenthood gets the same treatment?
heard on the left. yet, according to a seattle radio show host dave roth hodgkinson may have been motivated by a conservative understanding the constitution believing his assassination attempt was a constitutional live protected use of violence to resist tyranny. there is a theory for you. dave ross joins us tonight to explain. dave, it seems to me like here s a guy who said exactly why he did what he did, pretty clearly. and yet, you re blaming the country and the constitution for what he did. not at all. no. when i saw that he was being described as a left-wing terrorist, essentially, i wanted to find out what motivated him to actually use a gun to carry that out. you are allowed to hate the government if you want to. where i draw the line, of course, is using violence against it. and it brought to mind the militia story which used to be a big topic years ago, right? this idea the second amendment is the last extreme protection against