TEST.
TEST. >> YEAH, SO --
>> DOES THAT, DIHE UNDERMINE HIS
OWN ARGUMENT?
OWN ARGUMENT? >> I THINKNE HE DID.
I THINK YOU’RE GOING TO SEE
THOSE QUOTES REPEATED IN EVERY
BRIEF THAT’S FILED AGAINST HIM
BECAUSE THEY REALLY DO MAKE HIM
SOUND AS THOUGH THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT’S SORT OF A
LEISURELY THING AND HE’S ALMOST
SORT OF MAKING UP THE EMERGENCY,
RIGHT?
RIGHT? IT REALLY SORT OF IS SORT OF
CONFIRMING THE SENSE THAT IF WE
LOOK SERIOUSLY AT THE PROBLEM AT
THE BORDER, THAT WE WOULD BE
HARD PRESSED TO FIND ANY KIND OF
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT
SUGGESTED THAT THERE’S ANYTHING
GETTING WORSE.
GETTING WORSE. FOR EXAMPLE, THESE MIGRANTS ARE
UNARMED.
UNARMED. AND THEY’REAR COMING FROM POOR
COUNTRIES, AND THIS DOESN’T
SOUND LIKE THE KIND OF THING
THAT REQUIRES THE ARMED FORCES
TO BE INVOLVED.
>> THETO FACT THAT THE STATS SHO
THAT THINGS ARE GETTING -- THAT
APPEARS STATISTICALLY IT’S
GETTING BETTER NOT WORSE, SO
WHEN HE SAID I COULD HAVE KEPT
FIGHTING AND GETTING MORE MONEY
FROM CONGRESS, ACTUALLY,
STATISTICALLY, THAT BACKS UP HE
HAD TIME.
HAD TIME. THERE IS NO URGENCY.
>> I THINK THAT’S RIGHT.
THAT’S GOING TO BE THE MAJOR
ARGUMENT HERE.
ARGUMENT HERE. BUT I WOULD CAUTION ONE THING.
THAT IS THAT THE LAW THAT WE’RE
TALKING ABOUT ITSELF DOESN’T
DEFINEIT WHAT A NATIONAL EMERGEN
ACTUALLY IS.
ACTUALLY IS. AND THE COURTS WILL BE
PARTICULARLY RELUCTANT TO DEFINE
THAT IN ANY CLEAR WAY.
>> YOU HEARD BILL KRISTOL SAY,
HEY, IF CONGRESS, WHICH HAS THE
ABILITY TO OVERRIDE A VETO, HAS
THE ABILITY TO PERHAPS WITHDRAW
THIS EMERGENCY, IF THEY
ESSENTIALLY DON’T HAVE THE VOTES
TO DO IT, THE SUPREME COURT
MIGHT SAY, WELL, YOU HAVE THE
POWER TO DO THAT.
WE’RE NOT GOING TO D HELP YOU US
YOUR POWER.
YOUR POWER. IS THAT A POSSIBILITY HERE, THAT
THAT WAY THEY STAY OUT OF IT?
>> I THINK IT’S MORE THAN A
POSSIBILITY.
POSSIBILITY. IT WOULD BE A PREFERENCE.
IF YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT CHIEF
JUSTICE ROBERTS, HE IS AN
INSTITUTIONALIST AND EVERYBODY
SAYS THAT HE WOULD PREFER NOT TO
THRUST THE SUPREME COURT INTO
MAJOR NATIONAL BATTLES.
THIS IS ONE OF THEM.
AND SO IF THERE’S A WAY FOR HIM
TO SORT OF DELAY AND FOR
CONGRESS TO ACTUALLYAY DO THE
REBUKING, THAT WOULD BE
PREFERRED.
PREFERRED. >> MYKI FINAL QUESTION FOR YOU I
FRANKLY VERY PERTINENT TO MY
NEXT GUEST.
NEXT GUEST. HOW DOES THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, WHO HAS -- AS A
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BECAUSE
THERE’S A BUNCH THATST WOULD LIK
TO FILE A LAWSUIT, THE STATE
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN WASHINGTON
STATE WOULDUITA LIKE TO, XAVIER
BECERRA SAID HE WILL.
WHAT WOULD GIVE THEM STANDING?
>> THEE BEST ARGUMENT FROM THE
STATE’SAR PERSPECTIVE IS TO RELY
ON A CASE ABOUT STANDING
INVOLVING THE STATE OF
MASSACHUSETTS.
MASSACHUSETTS. AND IF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CAN MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT ITS
INTERESTS IN THE LAND DOWN THERE
ARE L AFFECTED BY WHAT THE
PRESIDENT’S DONE HERE IN TERMS
OF REALLOCATING RESOURCES,
THAT’S THE BEST ARGUMENT THEY
CAN THMAKE.
CAN THMAKE. >>
>> PROFESSOR TSAI, THANK YOUS