Talked to his Attorney General yet. Thats right. Reporter i had a chance to catch up with kellyannec conway. I asked her whether or not the president views this decision as some sort of set back or defeat. She didnt exactly answer that question, but heres what she had to say. This is a defeat . Do you see this as a setback . He sees it as the statute provides a president with great latitude and authority to protect the citizens and protect the Nations National security. This was not argued on the merits. Now that well have an opportunity to argue on the merits, we look forward to doing that. I think his tweet was perfect when he said, well see you in court. There you go. Some confidence being expressed by Kellyanne Conway at the white
house. Not a lot new in terms of arguments being laid out by the white house in response to this, just the very tough talk that were going to see you in court. That is not exactly going to win the day at the Supreme Court. I asked Kellyanne Conway, is thi
attacks on it, which really are a disservice to the core principle of our do maemocracy, integrity and independence of the courts. thanks very much. thank you. a quick programming note to the breaking news on the travel ban court ruling, the messy truth van jones will not air tonight. instead, tomorrow at 9:00 p.m. bob ferguson and solicitor general, i ll talk to them live about their victory.
that it indicates where the courts will be going and sending the president a message. rip up this order. do not adopt bans based on religious tests or unconstitutional standards. today the white house press secretary sean spicer said that judge gorsuch was talking in general terms and not direct recalling out the president when he was speaking to you. so i want to ask you, was gorsuch talking in general terms? in disputably he was talking about president donald trump s attacks on the judiciary and i repeated several times that i was absolutely outraged by these attacks by the president of the united states and judge gorsuch responded that he found it disheartening and demoralizing. referring to those same attacks
emirates, not in the executive order. one from egypt, one from lebanon, not pakistan. it says in the second this is based on what happened on nine hef. that s another part we have to look at. in the decision, it s important to note, the ninth circuit said we have begged, basically begged the white house to make its kay, show us why it s so urgent to get this done and they have not come up with an explanation. they department go through country by country. they said why do you have to do this and the white house explanation, an overreach sort of saying our decision is unreviewable. you re not supposed to challenge us on anything. if we say terrorism andimmigrat courts are supposed to all fall away. the most important part of the decision is the court saying that s not the standard. how much does it hurt the
it a political statement, in washington they were reaching back to things candidate trump said about a muslim ban or alleged comments to rudy giuliani? i think that ridiculous. the decision is the decision and the decision is by a bipartisan group of judges and the fact that they cited a statement by president trump, it is well established that the courts can look at motivations for law. it is not just the text of the law. courts can look at legislative history, at the statements of members of congress when they re reviewing a statute. that s something the courts have done for decades. the fact that a president a candidate and then a president has talked about a muslim ban, that is up with factor that is relevant. jeffrey lord, is it a political decision? sure. how? i think these people have political opinions i mean, i hate to say this, i was disillusioned of this when i