. >> well, look, when you have people as diverse as allen dershowitz and jonathan turley who have acknowledged the merits of the president's action under the constitution and the law, i think it speaks to itself. we're very confident that we're going to prevail. we'll accomplish the stay and we'll win the case on the merits, but again, the focus here is on the safety and security of the american people. >> that's why my question on the idea of sort of pulling it because if this is a concern and this is something that you can't wait, you and i both know the court system will take a while. this could take weeks, maybe months. why not do this in a way when you have proper consultations with different departments? there was a part of this that many republicans in congress believe it was done hastily. you have the opportunity to do a do-over. why not? >> it was not done hastily. there may have been some leaders on capitol hill that were not informed in the usual niceties of washington, d.c., but look, we live in a dangerous world. they have inspired violence in the homeland. we saw in the basement

. >>> let's break all this down now with law professor at george washington university, jonathan turley. jonathan, good to have you with us via skype. breakdown this decision, the court sided with this ruling except for one measure. >> the court acknowledged that it has a very limited record before it. that's the nature of this type of action. it was an appeal from a tro or temporary restraining order, and the court said it didn't have enough of a basis to reverse effectively what the lower court did. i think there was a criticism in some extent of the department of justice in how they handled the case. repeatedly the court said, look, you didn't give us anything to support these allegations. and what you gave us were questionable as to whether the means you suggested means. so it obviously was a great victory for the challengers, but people need to make sure they don't get ahead of their skis on this. this is not a ruling on the full record. it is not a ruling on the merits. the administration could still prevail in this case. >> and a lot of questions now in terms of president trump s

i agree with some of it. >> we will pass your complaints to jonathan turley. >> i'll take it up with him directly. for instance, i think the standing thing is kind of ridiculous but they did cite some people in the opinion but i agree with you those are the people that should be bringing it, not the states. >> that is another thing scalia would chop up. >> the president, the lawyer who argued this to the justice department at the end tried to change his position and back off which is not uncommon. >> he did. most legal observers agreed. let's just say it. he did a horrific job. one of the worst jobs. he went in one of the greatest advantages. this was the legal version of the atlanta falcons winning 28- going into the fourth quarter. i mean it. there is no way that lawyer should have bungled that. >> i'll say one thing about the opinion. the president does have extraordinary power to control the border but if he proposed saying we are not letting anyone named jones, then you'd say, the court has a right to strike that down. >> exactly. >> they basically have taken the position that a

and it is very frustrating when scholars on the left and the right, people as distinguished as jonathan turleyty, has said, while he doesn't agree with the executive order, he recognises the president has the full authority to put the security of the homeland first in determining who comes in... right, but this judge was appointed... but to actually suspend that order across the country is frustrating all of us. this is a judge who was nominated by president bush, 99—0 confirmed. how is he a so—called judge? well, again, we face a dangerous enemy inspiring people to come into this country, and frankly inspiring people who are already in this country, and the president is determined to use the authority that he has under the constitution and under the law, but we will go through the courts to challenge... but doesn't thisjudge have the authority to do what he did as well? he certainly does, and that is why the administration is complying with that as we speak, and we will go through the process in the courts to get a stay of that order so that, again, we can implement this action that is entire

get two views, from neal katyal, a former acting solicitor general under president obama; and jonathan turley, a law professor at george washington university. jonathan, let's begin with you. let's talk about the law. 1965, immigration and nationality act. what does it say, and how might it impact this executive order? >> well, i think it can have an impact. there's no question that the law says that you cannot discriminate on the basis of nationality or place of origin. and that certainly helps the challengers. but like much of this debate, much of that law has been distorted. it only takes you so far. first of all, the law doesn't apply to refugees. it applies to immigrants. it's used when you have visa issues. also, it doesn't cover religious discrimination. also, in 1990, the act was amended to exclude procedural changes as a form of discrimination. that-- that reduces the use of the 1965 law, i think, as a serious challenge. and, also it means that much of that order that is being challenged doesn't fall under the law. so even if one aspect might be challenged successfully, the other asp

but there is no basis for a personal attack here. >> jonathan turley, professor at george washington law. appreciate your time. >>> coming up, senators expected to vote tomorrow on the nomination of betsy devos as education secretary with all 48 democrats, and so far two republicans, opposing devos. it will likely come down to vice president pence casting the tiebreaking vote. we'll have a preview of that vote and the confirmation vote as well for attorney general nominee jeff sessions slated later in the week, coming up. ♪ something new has arrived. ♪ uniquely designed for the driven. ♪ introducing the first-ever infiniti qx30 crossover. infiniti. empower the drive. ...stop clicking around...travel sites to find a better price... the lowest prices on our hotels are always at hilton.com. so pay less and get more only at hilton.com. i own my own company. i had some severe fatigue, some funny rashes. finally, listening to my wife, went to a doctor. and i became diagnosed with hodgkin's lymphoma ...that diagnosis was tough. i had to put my trust in somebody. when i first met steve, we r

jonathan turley, great to see you. >> thank you. >> martha: as we wait this big announcement from thehite house, charles krauthammer will join us on the battle that is to come from the pike. senator mike lee also will join us after the break from the white house where he is expected to be with president trump later tonight when that pig is announced. plus, for the first time, secretary john kelly, of homeland security, addressed americans in for year rated by president trump's executive order on travel into the united states from countries that have ties to terror, shedding new light on what it really means for refugees. we will take that on right after this. ♪ ♪ if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis isn't it time to let the real you shine through? introducing otezla, apremilast. otezla is not an injection, or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. some people who took otezla saw 75% clearer skin after 4 months. and otezla's prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't take otezla if you are allergic to any of its ingre

the spring and jonathan turley, who was on the phone with us. constitutional attorney. your take on this decision tonight? >> it is obviously a considerable setback for the administration. very few presidents have faced this type of ruling by a court, limiting their inherent or plenary authority. the court specifically focused on the due process allegation made by the challenger, that said there was no real guarantee of due process that was shown by the administration. in some ways, the opinion takes a couple of shots of the justice department, being unsuccessful creating the type of foundation that the court needed to stay the lower court decision. it said repeatedly, you just haven't given a true proof on critical elements, including, quite notably, the authority of the white house counsel to act as he did to guarantee that visa holders would be exempted from this law. >> jonathan turley, we will go back to you. this is bob ferguson, we have the ball rolling in the state of washington. let's hear from him. >> good afternoon, everybody. thank you so much for being here

. >>> we're back with tim and jonathan turley. jonathan, i want to ask about the merits of this case. you were on the show last week. your basic argument is the president had broad authority to limit immigration. when i looked at it, what i'm struck by is the federal governments argument, the trump administration's argument seems to derive from a 1952 statute. it seems to me that congress passed the immigration and naturalization act to override that 1952 law and say you cannot discriminate on people on the basis of their nationality. you can't have a blanket ban on a whole category of people like that. this executive order does seem unlawful in that sense. this is what the attorney general felt and a series of federal judges now seem to have felt. why doesn't the aclu have a strong case? >> there's compelling arguments on both sides. please keep in mind even if a single provision is struck down by a federal court, there's long standing doctrine that they have to minimize a degree that they set aside executive order. the rest of th

joining us from washington, jonathan turley professor of public interest law at george washington law were not going to get this resolved about the bigger picture, of a series of very simple questions for you because you know i am a simple man appeared [laughs] the first question is this, what can president trump due to the state of connecticut was openly defied him? >> he could do a lot, he can cut off federal grants particularly from homeland security and the justice department. those are a close nexus to what he is complaining about which is a lack of cooperation, the big ticket items for states are education and highway funds, transportation funds, the nexus there is more attenuated. >> bill: if you try to stop that money from going in, it would be a court challenge that he may lose. he can unilaterally stop homeland security and justice department that hurts the state of connecticut. >> he can't, dear state and local authorities. >> bill: he can coerce them by punishing them. you have a movement and he heard it last night in denver county colorado who said the fourth amendment gi

it's very frustrating when, when scholars on the left and the right, people as distinguished as jonathan turley washington university have said while he doesn't agree with the executive order, he recognizes the president has the full authority to put the security of the homeland first in determining who comes into this country. and a sitting judge actually suspend that order across the country -- >> "so-called judge"? >> that was in response to george stephanopoulos, asking the vice president if he took issue at all with the president tweeting today "so-called judge" questioning the legitimacy of the federal judge who handed down that decision. let's talk with david gergen who advised four presidents. george stephanopoulos got right to the point. is it problematic in the eyes of the vice president, that the president question the legitimacy of this federal judge, vice president pence says no. what say you? >> i -- i think he's very ill-advised. it's inappropriate. i think particularly we had, he attacked a judge earlier. during the campaign. >> judge curiel. >> caused a big brouhaha. i would th

reporter is here with us and georgetown university law professor and a constitutional law scholar jonathan turley is with us. a arianne how do you -- >> the they're making constitutional and statutory arguments, they say it discriminates on the basis of the national origin. the government says they don't have, these states don't have standing and the executive has broad authority. in this area. so cases are ping-ponging across the country. right now one district court has issued this temporary restraining order blocking it nationwide. the doj has asked for a stay of that. and with the ninth circuit. depending on how the ninth circuit rules, either side could go to the supreme court and ask for some relief. justice kennedy has jurisdiction over the ninth circuit. so he would probably refer to his colleagues, but keep one thing in mind. the court right now is eight members. if they were to divide 4-4, then they would simply have to uphold whatever the ninth circuit did here. this is a preliminary stage. but that's not to say that the issue on the merits couldn't come back in one of these cases, the

. >> when you have people as diverse as allen and jonathan turley who have acknowledged the merits ofhe president's action under the constitution and the law, i think it speaks for itself. we're confident we'll prevail. we'll accomplish the stay and win the case on the merits but, again, the focus is on the safety and security of the american people. >> that's why my question on the idea of polling it. if this is a concern, and this is something that you can't wait. you and i both know the court system will take a while. this could take weeks, maybe months. why not do this in way where you have prop cer consultations wit different departments. you have an opportunity to do a do over. why not? >> it was not done hastilhastil. there may have been some leaders not informed. we live in a dangerous world. the reality is there's people around the globe who have inspired violence in the homeland. we saw in the basement of the louvre a machete wielding terrorist. the american people know the threats we face are real. they elected mr. donald trump for many reasons. we have remained confident t

say that is because every genuinely honest and objective constitutional scholar, people like jonathan turley, alan dershowitz, people who have openly said i disagree with the president on his decision, but he's the president, and he has every legal right to do what he's doing. that's really the question. this judge in washington is not there to judge whether he likes what the president does. that's not his job. it is not the role of the judiciary to interpret or to like or dislike a policy. it's just to determine one thing, is it constitutionally sound. and everyone who really understands the president's role and responsibilities in this have said he has the right to do it. now, frankly, i agree with the policy. but even if i didn't, i'd have to join in with the others and say the judicial branch can't just legislate -- trish: yeah. >> -- nor can it become the de facto executive branch because it doesn't like something. trish: i hear ya on that. when you say that you like the policy, i mean, this president is talking about building up our military so that, hopefully, we don't have to go to w

this is the zenith of his powers as jonathan turley has said over and over again. remember, the commander-in-chief is responsible for public safety and national security. historically, the idea an article three judge in seattle has the ability to second-guess national security judgments, arguing equal protection grounds which is so absurd, the analogy would be for the federal judge to adjoin the bombing of isis and syria unless the government bombed syria out of fundamental fairness. this is outside the competence of the judiciary to be second-guessing the president's judgment on a vital area to protect the american people for our public safety. the same thing is true of this three-judge panel. >> let me get andre in here. he disagrees. this is about national security and that trumps everything. >> i think what we have to remember, when anyone says second-guess, what we should be doing is second-guessing the president when he attempts to institute a preference for certain religions or disfavor certain religions. the president's authority is not unchecked. that's a

or do you believe jonathan turley, a constitutional lawyer who told me earlier tonight, look, the president has a lot of precedent to stand on with his executive order? >> like any good lawyer, i'm going to say, both of those things could be true at the same time. we'll have to wait and see what the court does here. but professor little, your previous guest is correct, that the standard here, in order to overrule the seattle court's ruling, is pretty high. you have to show he abused his discretion in some way. not just that you disagree with him, but that he really got the law wrong here. so it's a pretty high standard. >> danny cevallos, lawyerya jarrett, guys, stand by. obviously, this news is just breaking and unfolding. we have a lot more to get to as we watch these live pictures of a march in palm beach, just miles from president trump's mar-a-lago estate. we will take you back there in just a moment. you're live in the "cnn newsroom." with advil, you'll ask what twisted ankle? what muscle strain? advil makes pain a distant memory nothing works faster stronger or longer what pain? advi

. >> joining me now, jonathan alan, roll call columnist, and kevin turley, political reporter of bloomberg news. great to have you two here this morning. >> good morning. >> kevin, first off, the meeting between director comey and the senate intelligence committee. no one talked the afterward. what can we interpret from that rubio tweet? >> well, dara, i think what you can interpret from the tweet is that this investigation is going to continue and perhaps this is probably the most biggest issue that the president is facing, simply because it's not only senator marco rubio who is raising these questions. it's also people like senator bob corker and senator mccain. these republicans who are pressing the white house are quite frankly the ones who will be able to keep this story alive. this is a republican-controlled congress. however, this is also his own party that is raising these questions, not just the media and not just democrats. >> and jonathan, how much appetite does congress dominated by the gop in the house and the senate, do they actually have to investigate the president? and how