CNN's senior legal analyst charged on Thursday's Starting Point that "some
of these Republican judges are just deranged by hatred of the
President." Jeffrey Toobin was railing against the three-judge panel on
the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court that had made the Justice Department write a
three page memo about the Obama administration's take on judicial
review.
Toobin, who on Wednesday's The Situation Room denounced the judges for having "a hissy fit," on Thursday morning called the act a "disgrace." However, though President Obama had
said the Supreme Court overturning his health care law would be
"unprecedented" and "judicial activism," Toobin defended his remarks as
"entirely appropriate." [Video below. Audio here [1].]
In response to those remarks, one of the three Fifth Circuit Court judges expressed concern over Obama's remarks and the panel then made the Justice Department explain just what the administration had in mind about judicial review, through a single-spaced three page letter.
Actions like that, said Toobin, reveal a "hatred" of the President. "That was a perfectly appropriate comment by the President and it just shows how some of these Republican judges are just deranged by hatred of the President," he insisted.
The Blaze.com's Will Cain called Toobin out for his defense of Obama's remarks. "I find
the President's statement that was the predication for this, really I
find that unprecedented as well. You find it completely normal," he told
Toobin.
Cain said that presidents have clashed with the Court before, but after
certain decisions had been ruled on, unlike Obama who made his comments
before the Court has reached a verdict. "It's hard not to see that as
some sort of influence, warning, intimidation," he insisted.
A transcript of the segment, which aired on April 5 at 7:16 a.m. EDT, is as follows:
[7:16]
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN: Obama administration scrambling to meet this deadline
now. It comes from Republican-appointed federal judges. And those judges
want answers in writing after the President made kind of a
controversial remark about the Supreme Court's upcoming decision over
his health care law. Here's what he said.
(Video Clip)
BARACK OBAMA, (D) President of the United States: I'm confident that
the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented,
extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong
majority of a democratically elected congress.
(End Video Clip)
O'BRIEN: So that was what the President said in a press conference.
Some people say the president was warning the justices not to overturn
the law. It didn't sit very well with the three-judge panel hearing a
different challenge to the same law. And here's what one of those
judges, his name is Jerry Smith, said in court.
(Video Clip)
JERRY SMITH, judge, U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals: He was
referring, of course, to ObamaCare to what he termed 'a broad consensus
of majorities in both houses of Congress.' That has troubled a number of
people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or
to their authority, or to the appropriateness of the concept of
judicial review. And that's not a small matter.
(End Video Clip)
O'BRIEN: Hence, Jeff Toobin, CNN legal analyst. I said that you call
this a pissing match, but I got that wrong. You called this a hissy fit.
TOOBIN: A hissy fit. I think what these judges have done is a disgrace.
What President Obama said was entirely appropriate. There is nothing
wrong, there's nothing controversial. He said I signed a law that was
passed by the democratically-elected Congress and I think it's
constitutional.
And then these judges give the Justice Department a homework
assignment, a three-page letter, single-spaced, explaining what the
President said. They don't have to explain what the President said. That
was a perfectly appropriate comment by the President and it just shows
how some of these Republican judges are just deranged by hatred of the
President.
O'BRIEN: But isn't the role of the Supreme Court to overturn stuff that's unconstitutional?
TOOBIN: If they find it.
O'BRIEN: Right.
TOOBIN: And there's nothing that Obama said that was contrary to that.
The President has no leverage over the Supreme Court. He can't threaten –
what's he going to threaten to do? If you rule this way, I won't – if
you rule this way, I'm not going to invite you to a state dinner. I
mean, that's about his only leverage.
(Crosstalk)
CAIN: This is where I must step in, and I totally agree with you, Jeff. This is a very odd requirement.
O'BRIEN: Hissy fit.
WILL CAIN, CNN contributor: Three-page letter, single spaced,
explaining the President's views on judicial review. That being said, I
find the President's statement that was the predication for this, really
I find that unprecedented as well. You find it completely normal. But
while judicial review has been a 250-year-old concept that the country
has lived by, presidents have at times had problems with it. Jefferson.
FDR had a court-packing incident. But those all happened after court
decisions. ObamaCare tries this extraordinary and unprecedented before
the Supreme Court made their decision. It's hard not to see that as some
sort of influence, warning, intimidation.
TOOBIN: To do what?
CAIN: To rule in his favor.
JOHN FUGELSANG, comedian: What's he going to do if they don't?
TOOBIN: His administration wrote a brief asking them to rule in his favor. So it's not exactly a secret.
O'BRIEN: Everyone knows they want the justices to rule in theirs favor.
(Crosstalk)
FUGELSANG: – what side the President's on here.
CAIN: He continues to call it unprecedented, extraordinary exercise of
judicial power, from an unelected group of members. He's putting a lot
of language in here, Jeff, that suggests it would be totally off-base
for the Supreme Court to apply judicial review to his favorite law.
TOOBIN: And that's what his Justice Department said to the justices
last week. I mean, there is no secret about the Obama administration's
position on this issue. I don't see why the President saying it, the
Attorney General saying it, the Solicitor General saying it –
CAIN: Because it calls into question the legitimacy of their decision,
not his disagreement but the legitimacy to make the decision.
TOOBIN: He didn't say anything about their legitimacy. He said my
interpretation of the law is the following. He's an American citizen. He
has the right to express his opinion.
O'BRIEN: Okay, so let's talk bigger picture. So bigger picture. How is
what is really a political statement at a press conference becoming sort
of a judicial statement, right? Shouldn't the two of them really –
TOOBIN: Well, I think what I have devoted my career to attempting to
prove is that the line between law and politics is essentially
nonexistent. When you have cases like this, when you have cases like
abortion, affirmative action, these are essentially political decisions
being made by individuals who wear black robes, but they are, in
essence, political decisions. And I think the more we recognize that and
the more we eliminate this artificial line, this sort of idealistic but
really meaningless line between law and politics, the better, because I
think that's the way the world works.