"This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," April 5, 2012. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
SEAN HANNITY, HOST: It is an unprecedented standoff, the President versus the judicial branch and it culminated today at high noon with a three page letter from the Department of Justice, single-spaced explaining to the 5th Circuit Court just how President Obama views judicial power. Now, let's remind everybody how the first strike in this fight was levied.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDEN BARACK OBAMA: I just remind conservative commentators that four years, what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, there's a pretty good example and I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HANNITY: Now, this blatant move of presidential intimidation did not sit well with the 5th Circuit which one day later ordered Eric Holder to issue a written clarification by noon today. And now, the DOJ responded by saying that, "The power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute...The Supreme Court resolved this question in Marbury versus Madison while duly recognizing court's authority to engage in judicial review, the executive branch has often urged courts to respect the legislative judgments of Congress. The 'court accords great weight to the decisions of Congress' in part because is a co-equal branch of the government whose members take the same oath that judges do to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Here to respond to the stunning dispute between the President and the court, the author, columnist, constitutional lawyer herself expert Coulter, how are you?
ANN COULTER, AUTHOR AND COLUMNIST: Fine thanks, how are you?
HANNITY: What's going on? Well, there is this little case, and you would think that Mr. Law Review himself, the President, would understand Marbury versus Madison and Chief Justice Marshall a law repugnant to the Constitution is void as they establish the principle of judicial review.
HANNITY: Simple, right?
COULTER: I used to think some of these right-wingers were kind of nutty demanding to see Obama's college and law school transcripts, I want to see them now.
COULTER: He doesn't remember Marbury.
HANNITY: But they teach that in High School, civics class.
COULTER: But he did not go to high school in America, right? Wasn't that over in Indonesia. In any event, you know, most of us did learn how bill becomes law, and what the Supreme Court does in grade school. Liberals are often trying to push this idea that judicial review means overturning any act of Congress. Or rather judicial activism. Judicial activism is anything when the Supreme Court doesn't obey what the Constitution says like when they invent rights to abortion, rights to gay marriage, rights for criminal to go free if a specific Miranda warning hasn't been read to them. And normally, you get exactly the opposite from liberals because whatever they can't get through the process of democracy by having people vote on it, they get five justices on the Supreme Court to announce it's a constitutional right. You only have judicial activism on the left, you never get it from the conservative justices, otherwise they would be fantasizing a constitutional right to a flat tax, to bear nuclear arms.
HANNITY: But wait a minute, judicial activism as you pointed out is not overturning an existing law, especially one that's unconstitutional, judicial activism is finding new rights. We always say, Roe v. Wade is bad law, why? Because they found quote, "new rights".
COULTER: Or not finding rights that actually exists in the Constitution. I mean, if you don't overturn a law that's unconstitutional, that too would be judicial activism. The very simple concept that liberals are trying to hide their perfidy by lying about what it is. As if any law passed by any legislature, no courts can overturn it or its judicial activism. That has nothing to do with judicial activism.
HANNITY: This isn't the first time though the president has attacked the court. He did this in the 2010 State of the Union Address, we'll show this tape. And you can see the words uttered by Justice Alito, "not true." Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations to spend without limit in our election.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HANNITY: I mean, that was unprecedented. And he was wrong on the merits of what he was arguing.
COULTER: And not only was he wrong, and again we would like to see the transcripts from law school and college, but it really is pretty shocking to be attacking the Supreme Court when they are sitting right in front of you, as he attacked, incidentally, Paul Ryan inviting members of Congress over for a press conference on the budget and specifically attacking Paul Ryan. He's very rude, this president, in addition to being a very bad lawyer. And, you know, he's been trying to walk back that comment on Marbury since he made it. Well, he didn't mention Marbury because he's apparently unaware of it, since he made it on Monday. And the next try at that was, well, the court hasn't overruled an economic law like this, since the 30s, which is also not true.
They did it in 1995 and they did in 2000 and both the Violence Against Women Act, which by the way the case was brought to the Supreme Court by my law firm, got it overturned because Congress didn't have the constitutional authority to pass it. And the Clinton administration argued this is an economic regulation because violence, same thing with the one from 1995, the Lopez case. The Gun Free School Zone Act was declared unconstitutional, they both passed under the Commerce Clause claiming that violent crime and violence against women affects the economy because of insurance costs. By the way, many of the similar arguments being made to defend Obamacare here. They said it was an economic regulation and the Supreme Court turned it down.
HANNITY: All right. So, the president now today weighed in on Augusta, the administration, and they don't have women as members at the Golf Club. OK.
COULTER: The New York Times might be delighted.
HANNITY: But look at what he's now done in a series of steps, he weighs in on the Trayvon Martin case. Sandra Fluke gets a phone call. Now, he's weighing in on Augusta and the Masters and the club there, attacking the court. And why am I suspicious that this is all part of the series of attacks that are designed to, A, motivate or inspire votes for him and create a distraction so that people don't focus on his record? Am I right or wrong?
COULTER: No, I think you are right. And by the way, in case you don't know, he's also having a showing of "To Kill a Mockingbird" at the White House and he's introducing it on the USA Network this weekend because it's still relevant to our own time, as I heard on another network. So, yes, I think it's kind of embarrassing that he even needs to be ginning up the base but he does because his base is out of work. Ha ha. His bases are the college students, who all loved him and now they are unemployed. Ha ha. And his base is unemployed and paying the same thing at the gas pumps that we are. So, I mean, the fact that he has to solidify his base. No, I think this November is going to a good -- a good year for us.
HANNITY: -- because I am too. I think so. But I'm cautiously optimistic. All right. You said something the other night, right here on this network because I like Marco Rubio, I think he would be right at the top of anybody's list to be VP.
COULTER: I love him.
HANNITY: But why did the word pandering come up in your comments, in your remarks that somehow, that would be pandering, I assume, you meant, to the Hispanic community. His story is incredible. His speech -- he speaks extemporaneously.
COULTER: No, I think he's great, let me just say, quickly. I would like him to keep doing what he's doing and maybe run for president himself some day -
COULTER: -- and the reason the word pandering came up is because some host on this network was saying, no, we have to run Rubio as the vice president to get the Hispanic vote. And I said, look, if you are taking him just because he is an Hispanic, any Hispanic that would vote for our ticket --
HANNITY: I got you.
COULTER: Simply because there is a Hispanic on the ticket is never voting for a Republican anyway.