Toobin: U.S. politics will likely get worse before it gets better
October 11th, 2013
07:01 PM ET

Toobin: U.S. politics will likely get worse before it gets better

Watch Jeffrey Toobin on "Fareed Zakaria GPS," this Sunday at 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. ET

GPS Digital Producer Jason Miks speaks with CNN’s senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, about partisanship in the United States, the Supreme Court, and why gerrymandering is such a serious problem for America.

Almost a decade ago, you wrote a piece in The New Yorker entitled ‘The great election grab,’ in which you looked at the issue of gerrymandering in the United States, and how it risks undermining democracy. Ten years on, how are things looking to you on this issue?

It has definitely gotten worse. Everything the Supreme Court was warned about has come true. With the refinement of software technology, politicians can pick their districts with extraordinary precision and isolate districts from one another in a way that virtually guarantees party control of each district. And that contributes to the polarization of politics generally, the reluctance to compromise and cooperate, and the fear of primaries much more than general elections.

Earlier this week you suggested the United States Supreme Court is a “deeply political institution.” How far back do you trace that politicization?

I think the honest answer to that question is about 220 years ago. The myth of a clear distinction between law and politics has really been no more than that – a myth. And so the Court has always responded to, and reflected, the political decisions in the country. It happens that now, the Court is getting a series of cases that are highly political in nature, and the disappearance of moderate Republicans in the Congress has also been reflected in the Court, so that the five Republican appointees and four Democratic appointees really are very good predictors of how they are going to vote in many cases.

What do you think are the key upcoming cases for the Supreme Court?

I would point to three cases. One is the McCutcheon case, which is kind of the son of Citizens United. It is part of the continuing effort to deregulate American political campaigns, this one involving contributions rather than expenditures. Another one involves the future of affirmative action in Michigan. I think Chief Justice John Roberts wants to make a project of eliminating racial preferences in all settings of American life. The third is, in a way, the most esoteric, but perhaps the most important. It is about the National Labor Relations Board, about recess appointments. But the subtext of the case is whether a minority in the Senate, through the use of the filibuster, can stop large parts of the government from functioning by refusing to vote on the nominees. The recess appointment had been the president’s attempt to respond to that tactic, and so there is the question now of whether the president has that power.

Do you think it’s clear how the Court will rule on these?

The one thing with the Supreme Court is that they often have ways of avoiding the most inflammatory issue, and I think in all three cases there are ways the Court could duck the most politically controversial results. But if they are decided on the merits, I think the conservatives would win all three.

I think that the subtext of all the campaign finance cases is that Republicans by and large have more money than Democrats, and to the extent that you deregulate campaigns and open the gates to more money from wealthy people, that is going to help Republicans. And it has traditionally been Democrats and liberals that have pushed campaign finance regulation, so I think that’s most of what you need to know about whose ox is being gored in this case.

So you think the Supreme Court is very political. Does this politicization seep all the way down the justice system?

Yes, it is evident in the judiciary. The identity of the president who appointed a federal judge is a very good predictor of how that judge will vote on many issues. That’s something that didn’t used to be true. Again, the disappearance of the moderate Republican is an enormously important development. On the Supreme Court and all the way through the federal judiciary, moderate Republicans have been a really major force. And now you have the new judges who tend to be very conservative Republicans or quite liberal Democrats.

How optimistic are you that the country will be able to overcome this deeply divisive, intransigent period?

I guess I’m short term pessimistic, long term optimistic. I think we are in for an ugly time in politics. Probably worse even that it is now. But I think the United States as whole is becoming a freer, more tolerant, more diverse place that will be better for our children and grandchildren than it is for us.

Post by:
Topics: GPS Show

« Previous entry
soundoff (8 Responses)
  1. JAL

    Fareed, are you confident in a positive outcome?

    October 11, 2013 at 9:22 pm | Reply
  2. ✠RZ✠

    Ahh, the ol' blame game and passing the hot potato on to the courts trick. Likely premature, and even more likely to be completely misunderstood. But hey, no one ever quite understood why the derivative traders at AIG were paid a walk back bonus after being fingered for causing the 2008 collapse in the first place, so maybe the use of illusion could work in this situation too. Either way, some lessons have been learned, and the probability for real change more hopeful than ever.

    October 11, 2013 at 10:11 pm | Reply
  3. rightospeak

    The politics do not bother me because I always knew it was a circus. What I find disturbing is your censorship and Thought Police at CNN manipulating comments.

    October 12, 2013 at 7:11 pm | Reply
    • Pat

      I agree that comments are biased and manipulated. Candy C and Zakaria are unable to recognize there are two sides to a story involving debt ceiling and government shutdown. Perhaps they should have covered the illegal immigrant rally at the National Park, led by Pelosi who thanked Obama for promoting and allowing rally.
      Is this America? I'm with the Vets who feel their sacrifices are being overrun and disrespected by the media and the Harry Reid Democrats.

      October 13, 2013 at 1:38 pm | Reply
  4. Phelix Unger

    Just think, if there was a way everyone could communicate and effect real change.

    Oh well, just have to wait for the invention of the internet, then computers and later cell phones.

    Change is coming, might not what some want, but its going to happen.

    Political people will just have to start listening to the masses, obviously though the message is still not getting through to the right ears...

    One voice.

    October 12, 2013 at 11:01 pm | Reply
  5. Pat

    CNN would have more of an audience if they could present realistic discussions of the people they are criticizing (and demonizing, thanks to their Obama allegiance.)
    I would love it if they actually had some of the Tea Party leaders from various states invited to speak and state the Tea Party's view of debt ceiling, Obama's gov't shutdown and more.
    These are fine, middle class, hardworking, family oriented, Americans. Why do they never get a fair shake on CNN?

    October 13, 2013 at 1:43 pm | Reply
  6. j. von hettlingen

    The Supreme Court judges should have a term limit. A 10-12 years' tenure would be appropriate.

    October 14, 2013 at 6:39 am | Reply
    • j. von hettlingen

      Many Americans see their amendments as a sacred cow and are reluctant to adapt them to changes over time.

      October 14, 2013 at 6:46 am | Reply

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

« Previous entry