for more analysis let's bring in staff attorney at aclu, andre segura and dan stein, president of federation for american immigration reform. gentlemen, thank you. dan, let's start with a general proposition, because it did seem to play into the reckoning of the appellate judges of what are the motivations. you heard the judges bring that up a couple different ways. now, in context, the latest tweet from the president. do you have any concern about the president questioning the outcome of the ninth circuit as a play of politics? >> remember, donald trump is not an attorney, so he's not an officer of the court. he's entitled to express his opinion about whether he thinks judges are impartial or doing their job or properly looking at the issue from all sides. and whether that's actually a good strategy is, of course, another matter. as someone like myself being an officer of the court, criticizing the objectivity of judges is not a good litigation strategy. nevertheless, you have to take a look at the fact that the judges spent a lot of time on the procedural matters of standing and whether or