Appearing on Tuesday's New Day, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin renewed his lambasting of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, as he asserted that Scalia's dissent on the Court's gay marriage ruling was "unprecedented in its vitriol." The CNN analyst saw the conservative justice showing "abuse and contempt" for his fellow justices. Toobin also repeated his characterization of Justice Scalia as the "'get off my lawn' justice."

It was obvious on Friday that CNN reporters and analysts were giddily celebrating the Supreme Court's liberal ruling bolstering same-sex marriage, but CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin was perhaps the only one who inadvertently admitted that "we celebrate" the trend toward gay rights victories before immediately catching his faux pas with laughter and walking it back to "many people celebrate" as he predicted the next target of the gay rights movement.
 

Via Instapundit, we learned CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin has a piece in The New Yorker called “Obama’s Game of Chicken with the Supreme Court.” He imagines who will suffer if the Supreme Court rules against the Obama Administration in the Obamacare subsidy case, King v. Burwell. If individuals in more conservative states without state health exchanges lose their subsidies, Toobin says the political blame is landing on Obama:

Liberal CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin attacked Governor Asa Hutchinson on Wednesday's At This Hour, after the Arkansas Republican asked the state legislature to bring a proposed Religious Freedom Restoration Act closer to the original 1993 federal law: "This was political double-talk....The idea that you can compromise and find some language that allows people to not do business with gay people; and also, protect them...from discrimination, it's just impossible. There are no compromises available here."

Toobin, of the New Yorker and CNN, argues that while Giuliani’s “I do not believe that the President loves America” comments were “simply incorrect,” it was more important to understand that they were “not principally meant as assertions of fact.” Rather, they were “meant to tap into a deep wellspring of American political thought, one defined by the Columbia historian Richard Hofstadter five decades ago...Hofstadter described ‘the paranoid style in American politics,’ which he said was characterized by ‘heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy.’”