>> Tucker: THE SUPREME COURT
HAD AT THE WHITE HOUSE AND
MEANINGFUL FULL VICTORY TODAY.
IT RULED THAT A TRAVEL BAN
AFFECTING EIGHT COUNTRIES CAN GO
INTO EFFECT.
THAT DIVISION ISN'T FINAL.
INSTEAD IT MEANS THE BAN, WHICH
EFFECTS AND RON -- CAN REMAIN IN
PLACE WHILE THE COURTS EVALUATE
WHETHER OR NOT IT'S LEGAL.
NINE JUSTICES, ONLY SONIA
SOTOMAYOR AND RUTH
BADER GINSBURG SIGNALED THEY
OPPOSED IT.
MARK STEYN, THANKFULLY NOT
COVERED BY ANY OF THE COUNTRIES
LISTED IN THE TRAVEL BAN.
HE JOINS US TONIGHT.
GREAT TO SEE YOU.
>> GOOD TO SEE YOU.
HE COULD BAN ME.
>> Tucker: IT COULD HAPPEN.
>> YOU ARE RIGHT.
IT'S A BIG VICTORY.
BUT IF YOU TAKE IT IN HARNESS
WITH THE LAST HALF-HOUR,
ESSENTIALLY YOU HAVE HAD SINCE
THIS ADMINISTRATION WON A YEAR
AGO, THE BUREAUCRACY ON THE
COURTS GANGING UP, BASICALLY, TO
CRIPPLE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
THE FACT THAT HE HAD TO GO TO
COURT TO GET A TEMPORARY STAY IN
THESE TWO LOWER-LEVEL COURT BANS
ON HIS TRAVEL BAN, ACTUALLY
TELLS YOU SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT
AN INSANE SITUATION WE ARE IN.
THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE IS QUITE
PLAIN.
THE PRESIDENT HAS THE AUTHORITY
TO BAN BY PROCLAMATION ANY
ALIENS OR CLASS OF ALIENS.
SO HE CAN BAN ME PERSONALLY BY
PROCLAMATION.
HE CAN BAN ALL CANADIANS BY
PROCLAMATION.
OR HE CAN BAN CLASSES OF
CANADIANS.
HE CAN BAN CANADIAN TAP DANCERS
BECAUSE HE THINKS THEY ARE A
THREAT TO THE AMERICAN TAP
DANCING INDUSTRY.
THE LANGUAGE IN THE STATUTE
COULDN'T BE PLAINER, AND THEY
HORRIBLY POLITICIZE JUDICIARY,
LIKE THE HORRIBLY POLITICIZED
POLICEMAN HAS PUSHED LANGUAGE
BEYOND ITS MEANING IN ORDER TO
DENY THE PRESIDENT'S MOST BASIC
EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY.
>> Tucker: SO HERE'S THE TREND
I'M SEEING, TELL ME IF YOU SEE
IT TOO.
THE LEAST DEMOCRATIC PARTS OF
OUR GOVERNMENT, WHICH WOULD BE
THE COURTS AND THE BUREAUCRACY,
NEITHER ELECTED BY VOTERS, ARE
GETTING MORE POWERFUL, AND THE
MOST DEMOCRATIC PARTS, THE
PRESIDENT AND THE CONGRESS ARE
GETTING LESS POWERFUL.
SO THE DEMOCRACY IS ACTUALLY
WHERE THE NOW.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
YOU HAVE A PERMANENT STATE.
PRESIDENT OBAMA FAMOUSLY SAID IN
2009 ELECTIONS HAVE
CONSEQUENCES.
THE PERMANENT BUREAUCRACY AND
THE COURTS ARE SAYING IT TO THE
PEOPLE, ELECTIONS HAVE NO
CONSEQUENCES.
YOU CAN VOTE FOR WHATEVER YOU
THINK YOU WANT, BUT WE ARE GOING
TO GO AHEAD AND CONDUCT BUSINESS
AS USUAL.
AND THAT'S WHY THIS COURT
DECISION IS ACTUALLY -- THE FACT
THAT IT'S NECESSARY IS AN
AFFRONT TO ANY KIND OF
SELF-GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE
AND FOR THE PEOPLE.
>> Tucker: I REALLY LOVE THAT.
IN THE ORWELLIAN TURN THEY KEEP
WARNING US THAT THE ELECTION OF
SOMEONE THEY DON'T LIKE IS A
THREAT TO DEMOCRACY.
DEMOCRACY DIES IN DARKNESS.
BUT THE CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE
NEVER BEEN ELECTED, WHOSE NAMES
YOU DON'T KNOW, THE PERMANENT
BUREAUCRACY.
THAT'S DEMOCRACY?
LITERALLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT
IS TRUE.
>> AND WHAT IS DISTURBING TO ME
IS YOU FIND THIS ATTITUDE IN
BRUSSELS, FOR EXAMPLE WHERE
THERE'S A BUNCH OF CIVIL
SERVANTS THAT SERIOUSLY THINK
THEY KNOW BETTER THAN THE PEOPLE
OF 28 NATIONS.
AND THE WHOLE POINT ABOUT THE
U.S. SYSTEM IS THAT IT WAS
CREATED TO PREVENT THIS KIND OF
DIVIDE BETWEEN THE GOVERNED AND
THE PEOPLE.
AND THIS -- AND ACTUALLY I THINK
THEY SHOULD HAVE GONE FURTHER,
THE SUPREME COURT.
THEY SHOULD HAVE IN A SENSE
SKIPPED THE TEMPORARY STAY AND
JUST DECLARED THAT THIS IS
OBVIOUSLY WITHIN THE TERMS OF
THE PRESIDENTS STATUTORY
AUTHORITY AND THAT IF YOU OBJECT
TO IT YOU MIGHT AS WELL DO WHAT
DEMOCRATS IN THE CIVIL SERVICE
SEEM TO WANT TO DO, AND THAT IS
TO SIMPLY PASS A CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT TO SAY THAT IN THE
EVENT, GOD FORBID, , AND A
REPUBLICAN SHOULD HAPPEN TO BE
ELECTED PRESIDENT, THEN THE
ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WILL
JUST BE PUT IN THE DEEP FREEZE
FOR FOUR YEARS AND WILL CEASE TO
DO ANYTHING FOR POTOMAC
WHATSOEVER, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT
THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO SINCE
LAST NOVEMBER.