FOX News contributor and law professor Jonathan Turley discusses a judge bringing up “kings” in a court argument on Friday’s edition of “The Ingraham Angle.”

LAURA INGRAHAM: Hours later, the Court of Appeals, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked Breyer’s ruling, handing control back to Trump at least until Tuesday’s hearing. Here to break it all down, Jonathan Turley, George Washington University law professor and Fox News contributor. Jonathan, some former clerks and I were texting back and forth after Breyer’s order came down, and we — we saw the transcript of the actual hearing, which I hadn’t had a chance to read, where Breyer likened Trump to a king. “The president is, of course, limited to his authority,” he said. “That’s the difference between a constitutional government and King George. It’s not that a leader can simply say something and it becomes it.” Jonathan, now, is that little language lost on anyone ahead of this protest tomorrow? JONATHAN TURLEY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, that is part of the concern that I have with many of these opinions. It is a problem when political talking points appear in judicial opinions. And I did think that that happened here. At one point, the court says that Trump is creating disorder by trying to bring in forces to prevent disorder. And that’s the type of statement that that is collateral to the merits, you know. There are good points of debate here, right? The National Guard is a creature, of the states, but there’s also a statute that says the president has this authority and the governor shall issue the order to deploy the National Guardsmen. Now, you can disagree with what the word “shall” may mean, but it’s not an invitation to — to really sort of, give these extemporaneous comments on, the status of the nation. Or in this case, the judge goes in and questions even the need for any type of action here. It belittles the level of violence. It seems pretty clear that Newsom had this judge at hello, and that really undermines the legitimacy of the opinion itself. And it — it takes away from the fact that there is a good faith debate as to where these lines of authority should be drawn. INGRAHAM: Well, he — he obviously went to San Francisco District Court there instead of going to L.A. District Court. I know liberals in both places, but I thought that was strange. It’s all happening in L.A. Why are you going to San Francisco? But Breyer doesn’t just bring up Kings. Breyer likened Donald Trump to King George. And to me, and to those of us who, you know, read these orders with regularity and study them, that gave up — that gave it away. We knew he was a — he — he comes across at least as a partisan, not as a serious jurist who is impartial about the facts in front of him. TURLEY: Well, we’ve seen these sound bites inserted in other opinions, and the question is who are you speaking to? I mean, you’re supposed to be speaking to the law. You’re supposed to be speaking to the citizens as to what the law demands, not how you view presidents or figures or politics or parties. And that’s why I think that he did cross the line here in a very significant way. Now, the court of appeals are going to have to look at this. It could very well go to the Supreme Court. You know, since James Madison, this has been an issue, and the Supreme Court said back in the Madison administration that a president has given great deference in deciding when to deploy these types of forces. They generally do not guess as this opinion did. So, you can debate the lines of authority, but much of this opinion seems to me, really extraneous to — to the legal questions. INGRAHAM: Yeah. And, Jonathan, a lot of us think that this is all a prelude to if the Democrats regain control of Congress to impeachment proceedings. Whether, against cabinet officials, you know, take your pick. Whether it’s, Kristi Noem or the President himself, that the Democrats are setting, you know, setting in the narrative piece by piece, and that’s what we’re looking at with all these cases. TURLEY: I think, Laura, I’d say, I — I take an even dimmer view of this and listening to some of these politicians on your show in these clips. I mean, it’s as if they’ve become a party of Jacobins, that they are, you know, endorsing the most extreme possible actions. You know, I just wrote a book on the age of rage, and this is what rage does. It gives you a license to do things and say things you would not ordinarily do or say. And what these people won’t admit, what they won’t admit tomorrow is that they like it, and that they need it, and that it’s contagious and it’s addictive. That’s what rage is and you’re going to see that tomorrow.

Watch the full interview:
RealClearPolitics Videos