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
power, people are going back and looking at this russian collusion from new eyes as adam schiff pointed out that the first thing that strikes one is that conversation in 2012 where on hot mike inadvertent admission barack obama said i need more space. under today s climate that might constitute some sort of collusion itself. why was he being soft on the russians when hillary had a lot of exposure with the russians. he himself had this failed six year reset ga gamut. tucker: this might wind up in places we don t anticipate enough to. it s a progressive boomerang if you are going to take out the king, you have got to take him out. it didn t work. trump is a figure that anything that doesn t take him out makes him stronger. third thing is culturally, people are tired of finding another day, another celebrity tries to imagine a way of killing the president
power, people are going back and looking at this russian collusion from new eyes as adam schiff pointed out that the first thing that strikes one is that conversation in 2012 where on hot mike inadvertent admission barack obama said i need more space. under today s climate that might constitute some sort of collusion itself. why was he being soft on the russians when hillary had a lot of exposure with the russians. he himself had this failed six year reset ga gamut. tucker: this might wind up in places we don t anticipate enough to. it s a progressive boomerang if you are going to take out the king, you have got to take him out. it didn t work. trump is a figure that anything that doesn t take him out makes him stronger. third thing is culturally, people are tired of finding another day, another celebrity tries to imagine a way of killing the president of the united states.