Anticipating ObamaCare Defeat, Jeffrey Toobin Blames Conservative Judicial Activism
The day before the Supreme Court's decision on ObamaCare, CNN is already giving credibility to the Democrats' spin if they lose the case – conservative judicial activism.
"[W]hen you combine the two biggest decisions of the Roberts court, Citizens United and health care – if they lose health care – that is a pretty clear Democratic, capital 'D,' indictment of the Supreme Court," insisted CNN's senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin on Wednesday's The Situation Room. [Video coming soon. Audio here.]
Toobin was asked if the White House would be hypocritical for praising the Court overturning part of Arizona's immigration law and then ripping the Court as partisan for overturning part of ObamaCare. He answered that it wouldn't be hypocritical for them to do so.
He went on to make the odd claim that President Obama "has not really attacked the Supreme Court very much." The argument is strange given that the Court has not even made a decision yet on ObamaCare for the President to criticize.
And Obama has, in fact, warned that it would be "judicial activism" for the Court to overrule the law. "He made a somewhat critical comment after the oral argument, but then he backed away from it a little bit," Toobin lamely offered. Apparently accusing the Court of "judicial activism" if they rule a certain way is only a "somewhat critical" assessment of a decision.
"So it's unclear to me how much they want to take on the Supreme Court," Toobin added.
A transcript of the segment, which aired on June 27 on The Situation Room at 4:26 p.m. EDT, is as follows:
CANDY CROWLEY: Jeffrey, after the Supreme Court ruling on Arizona's immigration law, we saw the White House praise the Court.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN senior legal analyst: Absolutely.
CROWLEY: Are they now in somewhat of a box if the Supreme Court comes out and undoes part of ObamaCare, because can they then come back and say this Court is right-leaning, it's political? Haven't they put themselves in a political box here?
TOOBIN: Not necessarily. I don't think so. Because when you combine the two biggest decisions of the Roberts court, Citizens United and health care – if they lose health care – that is a pretty clear Democratic, capital "D," indictment of the Supreme Court. Now this is a challenge for the White House, how they handle this, because President Obama has not really attacked the Supreme Court very much. That hasn't been something he's done. He made a somewhat critical comment after the oral argument, but then he backed away from it a little bit. So it's unclear to me how much they want to take on the Supreme Court.
CROWLEY: Well he took them on in the State of the Union pretty good over the Citizens –
TOOBIN: That was Citizens United. But that's –
CROWLEY: He's not shy about doing it if he wants to.
TOOBIN: He's not shy, but whether he wants to make it a big campaign issue or not, I – it doesn't seem that way, at least not at this stage. But obviously, we have to see what happens tomorrow.
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
"[W]hen you combine the two
Submitted by tcm14 on Wed, 06/27/2012 - 5:49pm.
"[W]hen you combine the two biggest decisions of the Roberts court, Citizens United and health care – if they lose health care – that is a pretty clear Democratic, capital 'D,' indictment of the Supreme Court."
It's an indictment of the Democratic Party not the Supreme Court you hack!!!
Obama "hasn't attacked the Supreme Court very much"
Submitted by amlaml on Wed, 06/27/2012 - 6:00pm.
except in the SOTU for daring to say corporations have the same right to spend money in elections as unions
except for saying overturning his health care bill would undo years of precedence and would be judicial activism..
and so on and so forth
Earl Warren
Submitted by oldfart on Wed, 06/27/2012 - 6:03pm.
Well lets see - Democratic activitism is OK - especialy from our ol' buddy Earl Warren who, when on Attorney General for California did the following: "By February, Earl Warren, the Attorney General of California, had begun his efforts to persuade the federal government to remove all people of Japanese heritage from the West Coast.[22]"
I guess racism by a Demorat is OK. Whey didn't they do the same for people of German or Italian ancestory during WWII?
Earl Warren was a Republican
Submitted by libBuster on Wed, 06/27/2012 - 6:15pm.
I appreciate the sentiment, but Earl Warren was a Republican, In fact he was the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee in 1948. The point is that Republicans such as McCain who do the Democrats bidding get accolades.
This Supreme Court is far from activist. Citizens United v FEC and American Tradition v Bullock are based on very sound First Amendment grounds. The idea that corporations should not be treated as "people" is the radical idea. So to is the notion that not engaging in commerce is engaging in commerce.
Even the Arizona decision had a solid constitutional basis. The Constitution empowers Congress to establish "a uniform rule of naturalization". Note the word "uniform". All the Arizona decision means is that border security and immigration will be decided by the ballot box in November and by Congress afterwards.
What will be the response
Submitted by Shreve on Wed, 06/27/2012 - 6:52pm.
What will be the response from conservatives if they uphold the law? Even though the mandate was Republican idea?
Apparently you're ready to overlook the locks on the
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 06/27/2012 - 7:29pm.
caucus room doors, the closed sessions of the dem leadership to craft this bill that had to be passed so we'd know what was in it? No Republican had any input on this creation of Pelosi and Reid. So, the dems might point at the R's and holler, "They did it first", but the R's plan never became federal law.
Oops!
Submitted by sngnsgt on Wed, 06/27/2012 - 7:02pm.
You misspelled his name. It's Toolbin, as in what a tool this guy is.
It wasn't the Democrats' incompetence
Submitted by JeffC... on Wed, 06/27/2012 - 7:48pm.
Nope--that can't be the reason ObamaCare gets overturned. All of those lawyers in the administration and first they don't add severability to the bill, then no one can conceive of the legal arguments thrown at them during oral arguments.
It's bad enough that they're all lawyers. It's worse that they're lousy lawyers.
Dear Propagandist Toobin,
Submitted by stratman on Wed, 06/27/2012 - 8:41pm.
Was Roberts employing Conservative judicial activism when he sided with the Leftists in the case against Arizona yesterday?
Judicial activism is rendering a judgment that strays from the Constitution. Nullifying ObamaCare, because there is no severability clause in the Bill, or striking down the individual mandate only, would be keeping close to the Constitution, not straying away by creating capricious and self-serving concepts not found in the Constitution.
BTW, Toobin doesn't say "individual mandate". Why should he. The Constitutional basis contributes nothing to support or promote his Leftist activism.
ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES
Submitted by A TEXAS GRIZ on Wed, 06/27/2012 - 10:02pm.
Boy Howdy, do they ever. President Bush 43 WON and he selected two conservative leaning judges. Is Nobama saying he wouldn't stack the court with liberals if he had the chance? Funny thing, facts.
We have a conservative court because we won in 2000. It is a beautiful thing, elections. God bless America.