CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin makes surprising Trump prediction…

CNN’s chief political analyst make a surprising prediction this morning in regards to Trump’s national emergency.

It comes at the end of this video, after they make fun of Trump eating omelets:



If you don’t want to watch, here’s the pertinent part via Newsbusters:

There will certainly be some judges who say, look: it is the executive branch’s decision how to define an emergency. They will certainly come with arguments that say this is an emergency. And some judges will say, we just are not going to second-guess the executive branch in this area. Whether that’s five Supreme Court justices, I don’t know. My guess is it probably is. I think we are now in a moment, a conservative moment in our courts, where there is a lot of deference to the executive branch. So I think, you know, it’s — this is not a slam dunk for either side, this legal case. But if I had to guess, I would say the President is ultimately going to win.

Toobin normally has a hate-on for Trump these days, so it did surprise me that he’s predicting victory for the president in the courts.

The truth is that the national emergency is completely legal based on statutory authority given to Trump by the Congress. Despite what the ardent critics say the only real question before the courts, as Toobin pointed out, is if the courts will agree with Trump on what constitutes a national emergency.

I suspect that Toobin is right that most justices will defer to Trump on what constitutes a national emergency based on the law. Of course we know that some will block it – they always block anything Trump does on phony grounds. But of course Trump will appeal it and I believe that a higher court, if not the highest court, will allow the national emergency to continue while the case is being heard.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

30
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
30 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
newest oldest most voted
ChowYunFatty
Guest
ChowYunFatty

Time to check if they’re holding Ginsburg on ice or not.

KatherineBranwen
Guest
KatherineBranwen

Sorry, but the judges don’t get to decide what is and isn’t a ‘national emergency’, that is entirely the
prerogative of the President, and that is the WHOLE POINT!. On that, the statue is clear, as is the
history of presidents declaring national emergencies.

Right now, we have 28 active national emergencies, none of which were created by Trump, for
everything from blocked property transactions to moving vessels. One has been in effect for over
40 years.

William Shipp
Guest
William Shipp

MAGA 2020 !!!

Qui tacet consentit
Guest
Qui tacet consentit

What a time to be alive, kinda wish for the good old days, when the media would fawn over POTUS.

kong1967
Guest
kong1967

This didn’t deter from his “hate-on”. He merely believes that the conservative Supreme Court is going to rule in Trump’s favor. That’s not saying he agrees with it by any means.

Philo Beddoe
Guest
Philo Beddoe

Even some commies believe in the law

Morrie’s Wigs
Guest
Morrie’s Wigs

All of a sudden the f—ing moron Jeffrey Tobin, the so called lead legal analyst at cnn, thinks it’s conservative for judicial deference to the executive branch. What a tool.

AT
Guest
AT

the only real question before the courts, as Toobin pointed out, is if the courts will agree with Trump on what constitutes a national emergency.

There’s also the question of the intent of the statute. And if I were arguing against it, I’d go after that full bore. No way in hell did the Legislature design legislation to make themselves subordinate to the Executive. Which is how Donald is attempting to use it by arbitrarily declaring “Emergency!”

And the omelette point is a good one, frankly. Man seems pretty blase for a guy who’s shrieking there’s an emergency that needs unilateral action.

Rollercoaster on Fire
Guest
Rollercoaster on Fire

I think Robert’s will side with the dems in saying this isn’t a national emergency. It’ll be a narrow ruling.

hubman
Guest
hubman

There may well be some conservative justices who don’t like the way Trump declared a national emergency, but I think they would stick to the law, which seems to be on pretty firm ground. The idea that the chief executive should have the power to react to emergencies on the ground, and the ability to decide when that’s appropriate, is pretty long-standing. I think John Locke supported that position, for example. So they’re not likely to find much reason to support trying to block Trump, whatever they think personally.

The two biggest concerns for Trump are 1) lower-level activist federal judges, and 2) the possibility that one or more conservative justice will try to split the baby in some way to deprive Trump of at least some of what he asked for (Roberts, most likely)

BlackR1
Guest
BlackR1

Yes, Trump’s N.E. will be challenged in MULTIPLE circuit courts by numerous plaintiffs and yes, Trump has the Law and Constitutional authority on his side and will ultimately win,

BUT… and this is KEY, BUT it’s HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the issue will be “settled” before the 2020 elections, and if there’s no Wall by 2020 Trump’s re-election will be in doubt and if he loses? … the Supreme Court ruling will be moot because Congress can reverse a National Emergency declaration with either a 2/3rd Majority resolution or a resolution bearing the next President’s signature.

Herman Young
Guest
Herman Young

MSM is starting to realize Democrat are just blowing smoke? Gasp.

Herman Young
Guest
Herman Young

Obama would have to testify why bombing the crap out of Libya was a national emergency. They are just running interference for Obama.

Before any court decision could be made, a review of al executive branch exercises of this power since its inception would require detailed review.

I don’t believe any of the prior president’s exercise entailed actual threats to our own border security, if they are looking for absolute standards based upon precedence. for what is or is not a “national” emergency.

TXGRunner Fᵉᵈᵉʳᵃˡ ᶦˢᵗ ☑
Guest
TXGRunner Fᵉᵈᵉʳᵃˡ ᶦˢᵗ ☑

So, president amnesty builds a little bit of wall (a good thing)…meanwhile, back in our country, thousands or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, can’t be deported because of the member of a household with a potential sponsor loophole.

So, what is the purpose of the wall if they are allowed through the yuge, beautiful front door and can’t be deported?

Sentinel
Guest
Sentinel

The illusion of a wall is fading fast…

Golden Phoenix
Guest
Golden Phoenix

I don’t buy the precedent argument. National emergency on gun violence won’t work but I can see liberals going HARD on climate change if they win presidency. And someone like Roberts might side with them due to pressure just like he folded on Obamacare

debw777
Guest
debw777

Stop and think about it, we’re having a National Emergency and a legal crisis because of people from third world countries threatening to break our laws. And the Dems go along with it because they think these people will be useful idiots who will help them grab the power they want. Everyone will lose.

K-Bob
Guest
K-Bob

I’m getting bored with the “establishing a precident” alarmism. @byronyork Has someone done a detailed analysis of why the 31 currently active states of emergency are legitimate, and the newest one concerning the US-Mexico border is not? No, Byron. No, they have not. It’s not a precident. It *is* constitutional. It is legal. It is an Article II duty of the Executive to protect the very essence of what “being a nation” means. No borders means no sovereignty. No sovereignty means no country. The only precident being established here is that Citizens–who have always believed in limiting illegal immigration, but are now finding out that our sworn constitutional defenders have revealed themselves to be anti-sovreignty opportunistic hacks, and do not care about their obligation under the oath of office–are being royally screwed. And now we have a bunch of posers who claim to be conservative who think that’s just fine.… Read more »

iidvbii
Guest
iidvbii

Seems to me that it is kinda hard to argue that you HAVE TO act unilaterally once you have signed an agreement with the very people you claim are impeding your progress. Further when you blatantly state in a speech that “You don’t need to do this” and “Its just quicker” you seem to be signalling to the courts that this isn’t in fact an “Emergency” … Of course that’s just my opinion, what do I know…

Plot Evil
Guest
Plot Evil

There’s a conservative movement in the courts? I thought that was still kinda debatable. I’m foggy but wasn’t the last decision not as conservative as per some conservative judges’ decisions?

RWrad
Guest
RWrad

Have no fear neverTrumpers, the Chief Justice will come to the rescue and turn the republic over to the invading hordes.

crc2011
Guest
crc2011

Everyone with a brain knows what he meant by ” I didn’t need to do this “.

NewWest 123
Guest
NewWest 123

The last time they tried to say well he said this or that with the ban on terrorist countries, they said it’s not what the president says it’s whether the ban is constitutional or not. They know anyway it will be okayed. It’s all about blocking g anything and everything for as long as they can…

sjmom
Guest
sjmom

It must have pained Toobin to say this. No doubt he’ll make up for it later today somewhere somehow.

EWizzyE ✓JDSon
Guest
EWizzyE ✓JDSon

Even the New York Times admits Trump is on solid ground with his Executive Order.

57Matty
Guest
57Matty

For the umpteenth time, If Congress truly feels that this declaration is an overreach for a non-emergency, they can override it.

KenoshaMarge
Guest
KenoshaMarge

I believe Trump is within his rights as POTUS – the Executive Branch – from everything I’ve read about the law from people who’s expertise I respect. But does that matter anymore? Does the law matter? Far too many sitting in judgement in their black robes are not following the law but their ideology.

I no longer trust our courts to follow the law. That’s a frightening thing for someone who has always respected the law.

Rx No
Guest
Rx No

This may actually be the kiss of death for the emergency declaration because Toobin is usually always wrong. about everything!

TJK  ✓
Guest
TJK ✓

Robert’s had to rewrite obummer care, giving deference to obummer.

If he rules any other way, he is not a justice.

Steve Hanson
Guest
Steve Hanson

Trump admin excelled with conservative judges on all levels. Should pay off at some point..
Congress and their bill, agreeing with some border wall, to mitigate an apparent problem, makes their case very weak to stop the ED.

Back to Top of Comments