Trump Administration Gets A Partial Victory On Travel Ban

BAN CONTINUES. >> ARI MELBER STANDING BY.
I WANT TO GO TO PETE WILLIAMS, OUR NBC NEWS JUSTICE
CORRESPONDENT STANDING BY OUTSIDE THE SUPREME COURT.
PETE, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NEWS THAT YOU ARE HELPING
TO BREAK IN FRONT OF THE SUPREME COURT HERE.
WORD ON THE TRAVEL BAN CASE, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT THE
PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THIS DECISION TODAY IS GOING TO BE?
>> Reporter: SURE, THE PRACTICAL EFFECT IS AS FOLLOWS.
NUMBER ONE, THE GOVERNMENT IS ALREADY DOING IN ESSENCE THE
HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT THE PRESIDENT GAVE DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY, SPEND 20 DAYS AND SEE HOW DEPENDABLE VISA
BACKGROUND INFORMATION IS FROM SIX COUNTRIES.
THE GOVERNMENT STARTED TO DO THAT LAST MONDAY BECAUSE OF AN
INTERIM COURT RULING. THAT WILL BE DONE IN ANOTHER 15
DAYS OR SO. SECONDLY, THIS IS PARTIAL
VICTORY FOR THE ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE AS A PRACTICAL MATTER IF
YOU DON'T KNOW SOMEBODY, HAVE A RELATIVE, SOMEONE THAT WANTS YOU
TO COME TO THE U.S. OR YOU'RE HERE TO GET A JOB OR YOU'RE HERE
TO STUDY IN A UNIVERSITY, IF NEITHER OF THOSE CATEGORIES,
THEN THE GOVERNMENT WILL ENFORCE THE BAN.
YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO GET A VISA FOR THE NEXT 90 DAYS.
BUT ALREADY THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN DOING WHAT THEY CALL
ENHANCED VETTING, EXTREME VETTING FOR ALL VISA APPLICANTS
WORLDWIDE. SO MY GUESS IS THAT MOST PEOPLE,
CERTAINLY ONES INVOLVED IN COURT CASES, DID HAVE SOME KIND OF
CONNECTION TO THE U.S. THEY KNEW SOMEBODY HERE, WERE A
RELATIVE, WANTED TO GET THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW HERE, WANTED TO
ENROLL AT UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII, AS SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS
CASE DID. SO THE GOVERNMENT WON'T BE ABLE
TO ENFORCE THE TRAVEL BAN AGAINST THEM.
SO THERE'S NO CHANGE THERE. BUT IT WILL BEGIN TO ENFORCE THE
90 DAY TRAVEL BAN AGAINST EVERYBODY ELSE, AND MY GUESS IS
STRICTLY A GUESS, THAT'S PROBABLY LESS, CONSIDERABLY LESS
THAN HALF THE PEOPLE THAT WANTED VISAS.
THAT'S WHY WE SAY IT IS A PARTIAL VICTORY FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION. >> WE DON'T KNOW HARD NUMBERS ON
THAT, RIGHT, PETE? >> Reporter: CORRECT.
WE HAVE NOT SEEN HARD NUMBERS. COUPLE OTHER THINGS ABOUT WHAT
HAPPENED AT THE SUPREME COURT, HALLIE, LET'S TALK ABOUT IF WE
MAY. NUMBER ONE, NO WORD ABOUT
RETIREMENTS. WE ALL WONDERED IF JUSTICE
KENNEDY MAY SAY AT THE END OF HAND DOWN SESSION IN COURT
WHETHER HE WAS RETIRING. NO WORD.
TYPICALLY IF A JUSTICE WAS GOING TO LEAVE, THEY WOULD SAY SO
EITHER BEFORE TODAY OR TODAY. DOESN'T MEAN WE COULDN'T HEAR
FROM HIM LATER IN A WRITTEN STATEMENT OR SOME OTHER TIME.
THE MORE TIME GOES BY, LESS LIKELY HE IS GOING TO STEP DOWN,
DESPITE THE SPECULATION. NUMBER TWO, THE COURT AGREED TO
HEAR A CASE FROM COLORADO. THERE HAVE BEEN A SERIES OF
CASES ABOUT PEOPLE WHO PROVIDE BUSINESSES, PHOTOGRAPHERS,
FLORISTS, BAKERS FOR SAME SEX WEDDINGS.
THEY REFUSE TO PROVIDE SERVICES ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS.
MOST PEOPLE SUING IN LOWER COURTS HAVE LOST, BUT TODAY THE
SUPREME COURT SAID IT WOULD TAKE THE APPEAL FROM A BAKER IN
CALIFORNIA WHO ARGUED THAT BEING REQUIRED TO PROVIDE CAKES FOR
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE VIOLATED HIS RELIGION.
HE ARGUES HE IS AN ARTIST AND CAKES ARE A WORK OF ART, HE IS
FORCED TO CREATE A MESSAGE HE DOESN'T AGREE WITH.
SECONDLY, THE COURT ONCE AGAIN TODAY SAID IT IS NOT GETTING
INTO THE ISSUE OF BEGUN RIGHTS. BIGGEST ISSUE NATIONWIDE ON GUN
RIGHTS, IS THERE A RIGHT TO CARRY A GUN OUTSIDE THE HOME.
IN 2008, THE SUPREME COURT IN A VERY BIG DECISION FOR THE FIRST
TIME IN OUR HISTORY SAID THE SECOND AMENDMENT PROVIDES AN
INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO HAVE A GUN AND THE COURT SAID SPECIFICALLY
YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE A GUN AT HOME FOR SELF DEFENSE.
THE BIG LEGAL QUESTION IS WHAT ABOUT OUTSIDE THE HOME.
IS THERE A RIGHT TO CARRY A GUN OUTSIDE, WHAT ABOUT CONCEAL
CARRY. THE COURT HAD A BIG I INVITATIO
TO TAKE THAT UP FROM TODAY FROM CALIFORNIA AND IT DECLINED TO DO
SO. ONE OTHER NOTABLE CASE, WITHOUT
HEARING ANY ARGUMENT SIMPLY ON THE RECORD, THE COURT TODAY
OVERTURNED A POLICY IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS THAT SAID WHEN SAME
SEX PARENTS WANT TO LIST BOTH NAMES ON THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE,
ONLY THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER CAN BE LISTED.
THIS IS IN COUPLES THAT HAVE A CHILD THROUGH SURROGACY.
THE STATE SAID A BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS A BIOLOGICAL
RECORD. TODAY THE SUPREME COURT SAID
THAT'S NOT ENTIRELYELY TRUE. IF A WOMAN HAS A CHILD AND THE
HUSBAND ISN'T THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER, IN AN OPPOSITE SEX
MARRIAGE, THE HUSBAND IS STILL LISTED ON THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
SO IT IS NOT FAIR NOT TO HAVE THE SAME POLICY WITH SAME SEX
COUPLES AND THE COURT OVERTURNED THAT

Trump Administration Gets A Partial Victory On Travel Ban | MSNBC

Latest Posts