TODAY THE SUPREME COURT
HANDED DONALD TRUMP AT LEAST A
PARTIAL VICTORY ON HIS MUSLIM TRAVEL BAND BY REINSTATING
SIGNIFICANT PORTIONS OF IT.
WE WILL BREAK DOWN WHAT IS
REINSTATED AND WHAT IS NOT.
IT MEANS THAT THE COURT CASE WILL
CONTINUE TO GO FORWARD.
WHAT IS HAPPENING TODAY IS NOT
NECESSARILY PERMANENT, ALTHOUGH
IT IS BAD FOR PEOPLE IT WILL AFFECT AND THEORETICALLY SETS A
BAD PRECEDENT FOR THE FUTURE.
LET'S BREAK DOWN THE SPECIFICS
HERE.
NOW AS WE POINTED OUT EARLIER, BRINGING BACK CERTAIN
PORTIONS OF IT WAS WIDELY
SUPPORTED BY THE JUSTICES.
BUT SOME WANTED MORE.
I KNOW YOU
WERE WONDERING WHERE GORE SUCH CAME OUT ON THIS.
HE WANTED A
FULL REINSTATEMENT OF THE BAND
GOING FORWARD UNTIL THIS FALL.
EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE THE ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA WILL SEE A
CONSERVATIVE WHO IS NOT FOAMING AT
THE MOUTH.
IN FACT WITH HIS
RULING IN A CASE WHERE HE SAID IF YOU DON'T WANT TO LISTEN TO A
CORPORATION AND SIT IN YOUR TRUCK AND FREEZE TO DEATH, THEN
YOU SHOULD BE FIRED.
SO DON'T GET SURPRISED WHEN GORESUCH
VOTES EXTREME RIGHT WING IN
EVERY SINGLE CASE.
IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE IF ANYONE ELSE WOULD'VE WON THE
PRESIDENCY THEY PROBABLY WOULD'VE APPOINTED HIM TOO.
LET'S LOOK AT THE REST OF THIS BAN.
WHICH IS GREAT FOR THE
AMERICAN TOURISM INDUSTRY, WAY
TO GO THERE, DONALD TRUMP.
THERE YOU ARE REALLY LEAVING IT UP TO
A LOT OF INDIVIDUALS THAT THEORETICALLY COULD ADJUDICATED
IN A MORE OR LESS STRINGENT
FASHION.
THEORETICALLY SOME, IF THEY HAVE NO CONNECTIONS TO
QUESTIONABLE PEOPLE WILL STILL BE ALLOWED TO ENTER THE COUNTRY,
ALTHOUGH THAT REMAINS TO BE
SEEN.
I DID WANT TO SHOW THIS TO CENK, BECAUSE TRUMP CONSIDERS
THIS A GIGANTIC WIN.
NINE ñ O WITH AN O. LEAVING ME TO HAVE TO
THINK FOR AT LEAST THREE MINUTES, DOES HE KNOW WHAT THE
O IN 9-0 MEANS?
AND I DON'T KNOW THAT HE DOES.
ANOTHER POINT I WANT TO MAKE IS DOES POLITICS MATTER FOR
JUDGES AND JUSTICES?
OF COURSE.
EVERY OTHER COURT SAID THAT HE
WAS TRYING TO BAN MUSLIMS.
HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO SHUT DOWN
MUSLIMS WHEN HE WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.
HE ASKED
HIM FOR A WAY TO MAKE IT LEGAL, BUT IT WAS IN FACT A MUSLIM BAN.
THE FOURTH CIRCUIT LOOKED AT THAT AND SAID IT IS A VIOLATION
OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.
THE SUPREME COURT LOOKED AT IT AND
SAID I DON'T THINK SO.
THESE ARE SIX RANDOM COUNTRIES, IT
COULD'VE BEEN NORWAY.
CONSERVATIVES WILL SAY HE DIDN'T
BAN ALL THE MUSLIM COUNTRIES.
YOU KNOW THE ONES HE HAS GOOD
BUSINESS DEALS WITH.
BY THE WAY SOME OF THE WORST ABUSERS, 15
OUT OF 19 OUT OF THE HIJACKERS WERE SAUDI'S, BUT THEY CAN COME
BACK IN, NO PROBLEM.
CONSERVATIVES TURN AROUND AND
SAY IT MUST NOT BE ABOUT MUSLIMS.
IT WOULD BE VERY EASY TO MAKE HISTORICAL ANALOGIES ABOUT HOW
THEY DIDN'T LOCK UP EVERYBODY.
BUT THEORETICALLY THEY COULD IF
THE SUPREME COURT WERE TO UPHOLD THIS, THEN SIX CAN BECOME
SEVEN, OR 20 OR THE ENTIRETY
OF THE PLANET.
BECAUSE NATIONAL SECURITY IN THAT TIME THAT THE BAN HAD
FALLEN APART ñ THE SIX COUNTRIES INVOLVED HAVE NOT HAD ONE PERSON
FROM THOSE COUNTRIES DO A DEADLY ATTACK INSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
IT WAS BASED ON NO FACTS
WHATSOEVER.
DO WANT TO KNOW HOW MANY REFUGEES FROM THESE COUNTRIES
HAVE COMMITTED TERRORIST
ATTACKS?
ZERO.
TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF HOW MUCH THIS ROLLING MATTERS, THEY
ARE GOING TO DO THE FULL RULING
LATER.
BUT THE 90 DAY BAN WELL ALREADY HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY
EXECUTED BY THE TIME THEY GET TO
MAKING A DECISION ON THE CASE.
MAYBE EVEN THE WHOLE 128
BAN ON REFUGEES.
ANYWAYS, DON'T WORRY BECAUSE IF THE SUPREME
COURT SAYS IT IS OKAY, THE BAN CAN BECOME INDEFINITE.
SO THEN
WE WILL HAVE AN INDEFINITE
EXCLUSION BASED ON RELIGION, I'M SURE THAT'S WHAT THE FOUNDING
FATHERS WOULD'VE WANTED.