>>> WELCOME BACK. THE SUPREME COURT HAS SPOKEN ON
THE PRESIDENT’S SO CALLED TRAVEL
BAN.
BAN. WHAT COMES NEXT?
JOINING ME IS DEMOCRATIC SENATOR
FROM HAWAII.
FROM HAWAII. THAT’S THE STATE THAT BROUGHT
THE LAWSUIT ON THE PRESIDENT’S
TRAVEL ORDER THAT RESULTED IN
TODAY’S DEVELOPMENT.
TODAY’S DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.
I KNOW AND WE PLAYED SOME OF
YOUR CLIPS OF WHAT YOU WERE
SAYING EARLIER TODAY.
I KNOW YOU’RE CRITICAL OF THIS
RULING.
RULING. ONE THING YOU SAID THAT JUMPED
OUT AT ME.
YOU LIKEN THE DECISION BY THE
SUPREME COURT TODAY TO AN
INFAMOUS DECISION BACK IN 1994
THAT AUTHORIZEsED THE INTERNMENT
OF JAPANESE AMERICANS DURING THE
SECOND WORLD WAR.
IN MAKING THAT COMPARISON, DO
YOU THINK THAT’S WHERE THIS
COULD END UP?
DO YOU THINK THE SUPREME COURT
HAS GIVEN THIS PRESIDENT OR ANY
PRESIDENT THE POWER TO DO
SOMETHING SIMILAR WITH MUSLIMS?
>> THAT’S MY FEAR.
THE COURT SAID UNDER THE
IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT
THAT YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU
WANT JUST SO LONG AS YOU DEEM IT
TO BE IN THE INTEREST OF
NATIONAL SECURITY AND YOU DON’T
HAVE OVERT THINGS LIKE -- THIS
IS A MUSLIM BAN.
HE WAS SO OVERT ABOUT IT DURING
THE CAMPAIGN AND HE WANTED TO
PREVENT MUSLIMS FROM COMING TO
THE COUNTRY.
THE COUNTRY. THE COURT SAID WE’RE NOT GOING
TO CONSIDER THAT.
THE DISSENT BY JUST SOTOMAYOR
SAID THIS IS VERY MUCH LIKE THE
DECISION WHERE THE GOVERNMENT
CAME IN AND THE PRESIDENT
JUSTIFIED HIS ACTIONS SAYING
THIS IS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.
I THINK IT’S QUITE REMINISCENT.
I SAY WHO’S NEXT?
IS HE GOING TO BAN MEXICANS?
PEOPLE FROM GUATEMALA, PEOPLE
FROM HONDURAS.
FROM HONDURAS. I THINK THE PRESIDENT IS FEELING
PRETTY POWERFUL AND WE HARDLY
NEED TO GIVE HIM MORE POWER AND
HE DOES NOT LIMIT HIMSELF TO THE
RULE OF LAW OR DUE PROCESS OR
ANYTHING ELSE MUCH THAT PROMOTES
DEMOCRACY IN OUR COUNTRY.
>> LET ME ASK YOU BECAUSE THE
RULING FROM THE COURT HERE, HE
SAID THE PROCLAMATION, MEANING
THE TRAVEL BAN, IS SQUARELY
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF PRESIDENTIAL
AUTHORITY.
AUTHORITY. THEY WOULD TAKE NO DECISION ON
HIS MOTIVATION BUT HE WAS
EXERCISING LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY
UNDER THE LAW.
IS THERE THOUGHT YOUR PART AS A
LAWMAKER TO WHAT I THINK THE
LAW?
LAW? >> PRETTY MUCH THE COURT SAID IF
YOU DON’T LIKE OUR
INTERPRETATION OF HOW WIDE THE
LATITUDE IS TO THE PRESIDENT
UNDER THE APPROPRIATE ACT THEN
YOU MEMBERS OF CONGRESS CAN
CHANGE THAT.
CHANGE THAT. AS THOUGH WE HAVE AN ENVIRONMENT
WHERE THIS CONGRESS IS GOING TO
DO ANYTHING POSITIVE REGARDING
IMMIGRATION.
IMMIGRATION. I SAY THIS IS A DARK DAY FOR OUR
COUNTRY, FOR ANYBODY WHO CARES
ABOUT CHECKS AND BALANCES
BECAUSE NOTICE, THE PERSON WHO
GAVE THE SUPREME COURT THE FIFTH
VOTE ON THIS WAS NONE OTHER THAN
NEIL GORSICH.
NEIL GORSICH. THE TWEET WAS OF MITCH McCONNELL
SHAKING HANDS WITH NEIL GORSICH.
BY PREVENTING MERRITT GARLAND
FOR GETTING A VOTE.
I THINK HISTORY WILL DEEM THIS
AS AN ERROR BUT ANOTHER DECISION
THAT WILL COME DOWN THE PIKE
TOMORROW RELATING TO PUBLIC
SECTOR UNIONS.
SECTOR UNIONS. NEIL GORSICH WILL PROBABLY GIVE
THE COURT THE FIFTH VOTE ON THAT
DECISION ALSO.
DECISION ALSO. >> I’M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND YOUR
INTERPRETATION OF YOUR VIEW OF
PRESIDENTIAL POWER AS IT RELATES
TO THIS CASE.
IF WE TOOK A FUTURE PRESIDENT.
IT’S NOT DONALD TRUMP.
I DON’T KNOW IF IT’S A
REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT.
I DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS
FUTURE DEMOCRAT BUT IF A FUTURE
PRESIDENT ASSERTED THAT I AS THE
PRESIDENT HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE
A DETERMINATION THAT THE
FOLLOWING THREE OR FOUR
COUNTRIES HAVE ABSOLUTELY,
UNACCEPTABLE VETTING PROCEDURES
AND UNTIL THOSE VETTING
PROCEDURES ARE ADDRESSED, I’M
NOT GOING TO ALLOW ENTRIES INTO
THE UNITED STATES FROM THOSE
COUNTRIES.
COUNTRIES. WOULD THAT FUTURE PRESIDENT, DO
YOU THINK THAT FUTURE PRESIDENT
HAS THAT POWER?
>> THE ERROR OF THIS COURT’S
DECISION IS THEY DID NOT TAKE
INTO CONSIDERATION THE TRUE
MOTIVES FOR THIS ITERATION OF
THIS MUSLIM BAN.
YOU CAN COAT IT ANY WAY YOU
WANT.
WANT. YOU CAN TRY TO SUGAR COAT IT BY
SAYING THIS IS FOR SOME OTHER
REASONS.
REASONS. THE COURT SAYING THAT WHATEVER
THE PRESIDENT SAYS TO JUSTIFY
WHAT HE’S DOING HAS NO IMPACT ON
THE DECISION AT ALL.
THAT IS A VERY BROAD, BROAD
READING OF THE POWERS THAT THE
PRESIDENT HAS TO DO WHATEVER THE
HECK HE WANTS UNDER THE RUBRIC
OF NATIONAL SECURITY.
LOOK AT THE TOTALITY OF THE
COMMENTS AND THE STATEMENTS THAT
CAN LEAD ONE TO CONCLUDE THAT
THE REAL DESIRE WAS FOR A MUSLIM
BAN WHICH SHOULD BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS BASED ON
RELIGION.
RELIGION. >> IN THE ARGUMENT YOU’RE
MAKING, THE IDEA OF HE SAID THIS
ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL.
LET’S MATCH THIS UP WITH THE
ACTION HE TRIED TO TAKE AS
PRESIDENT AND SEE IF WE CAN SEE
CLEARLY WHAT THE TRUE MOTIVATION
IS.
IS. IS THERE ANY KIND OF SLIPPERY
SLOPE POTENTIAL IN THAT SORT OF
THING.
THING. ON A DIFFERENT ISSUE, NOT NETLY
NECESSARILY IMMIGRATION.
NECESSARILY IMMIGRATION. YOU TRY TO MATCH UP WHAT A
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SAYS ON
THE TRIAL INTO WHAT THEY DO, ARE
YOU TRYING TO DISCERN MOTIVE?
>> I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO
DISCERN, IT’S NOT JUST MOTIVES
THAT WE’RE MAKING UP.
IT’S ASSURANCES AND EXPOLICE
STATION -- EXPLANATIONS THAT
CAME OUT OF HIS MOUTH.
THE SLIPPERY SLOPE IS THE
PRESIDENT CAN TARGET SOME OVER
GROUP, SOME OTHER COUNTRY NEXT
AND SAY THIS IS FOR NATIONAL
SECURITY REASONS THAT I’M DOING
THIS.
THIS. JUST ABOUT ANY CASE THAT YOU CAN
THINK OF BUT IN THIS CASE WHERE
THE PRESIDENTIAL POWER IS
BASICALLY UNFETTERED, I THINK
THAT CREATES MORE OF A DANGEROUS
SLIPLY SLOPE THAN THEM SAYING
WAIT A MINUTE, YOU SAID ALL
THESE THINGS THAT YOU WANTED TO
IMPOSE A MUSLIM BAN AND THIS IS
NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.
NOT CONSTITUTIONAL. WE’RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO
DO THAT.
DO THAT. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A MUCH
BETTER RULING.
BETTER RULING. THAT WOULD HAVE SET SOME
PARAMETERS SO WE DON’T GET ON A
SLIPPERY SLOPE.
SLIPPERY SLOPE. THIS CREATES THE OPENING FOR THE
VERY KIND OF SLIPPERY SLOPE THAT