story here. Obama/Gibbs "fire back." other than acting butch, which seems to get a rise out of effete coastal liberals, i'm not sure what Obama gains by engaging in a fight with the supreme court. [rquoter] By JAY REEVES Associated Press Writer TUSCALOOSA, Ala. (AP) -- U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Barack Obama's first State of the Union address was "very troubling" and that the annual speech to Congress has "degenerated into a political pep rally." Responding to a University of Alabama law student's question about the Senate's method of confirming justices, Roberts said senators improperly try to make political points by asking questions they know nominees can't answer because of judicial ethics rules. "I think the process is broken down," he said. Obama chided the court for its campaign finance decision during the January address, with six of the court's nine justices seated before him in their black robes. Roberts said he wonders whether justices should attend the address. "To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we're there," said Roberts, a Republican nominee who joined the court in 2005. Roberts said anyone is free to criticize the court and that some have an obligation to do so because of their positions. "So I have no problems with that," he said. "On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum. The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court - according the requirements of protocol - has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling." Breaking from tradition, Obama used the speech to criticize the court's decision that allows corporations and unions to freely spend money to run political ads for or against specific candidates. "With all due deference to the separation of powers, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. Justice Samuel Alito was the only justice to respond at the time, shaking his head and appearing to mouth the words "not true" as Obama continued. In response to Roberts' remarks Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs focused on the court's decision and not the chief justice's point about the time and place for criticism of the court. "What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections - drowning out the voices of average Americans," Gibbs said. "The president has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response." Justice Antonin Scalia once said he no longer goes to the annual speech because the justices "sit there like bumps on a log" in an otherwise highly partisan atmosphere. Roberts opened his appearance in Alabama with a 30-minute lecture on the history of the Supreme Court and became animated as he answered students' questions. He joked about a recent rumor that he was stepping down from the court and said he didn't know he wanted to be a lawyer until he was in law school. While Associate Justice Clarence Thomas told students at Alabama last fall he saw little value in oral arguments before the court, Roberts disagreed. "Maybe it's because I participated in it a lot as a lawyer," Roberts said. "I'd hate to think it didn't matter."[/rquoter]
What gets a rise out of registered republican portly middle aged opera buffs? Anyway - your political instincts are firing on all cylinders as usual, yeah, running against the political and legal farce that is Citizens United really sounds like a dangerous move. I mean only 80% of all Americans (including a majority of registered repubs like you) are opposed to it.
portly? hmmm, never been called that. it's not the sentiment, but rather the venue that was objectionable, as roberts notes. i will go back to clinging bitterly to my cognac and my coltrane.
Seeing the President speak in Congress on TV seems like a cool thing to attend; like you're part of an exclusive club that helps run the best funded and most powerful organization in the world, and you can never get fired. I can't see an ambitious egghead like Roberts ever actually turning it down. And I'm guessing they've been pep rallies since FDR, with a small lapse between '72 - 80.
Chief Justice Roberts was wrong to speak out regarding Obama's poor taste in criticizing the Supreme Court in a supposedly non-political venue (a State of the Union address). Judges -- all judges -- should be seen and not heard in non-judicial settings. A much stronger and more suitable "statement" would be for the justices to boycott Obama's future State of the Union addresses.
Roberts is full of it: he didn't like the sentiment. But he's not ready to start a full-blown war between the SC and the White House AND Congress, so he's trying to criticize the venue. That was the PERFECT time and place to criticize the SC. I'm pretty sick and tired of them living in this tiny, insulated bubble in which they act with little to no accountability for their decisions. It was the exact right time and place to let them know that the other branches of govt. (and the vast majority of Americans) disagree wholeheartedly with their backwards thinking. Their decision will damage our electoral process severely, and they need to know that.
He's not afraid of a war with Congress or the White House. They couldn't do anything to him. He's a SC justice. He's mindful of his place. He will outlast Obama and a lot of members of Congress. I'm sorry you think it was the appropriate place for Obama to criticize the Justices. Unless you believe it would be appropriate for the Justices to stand up and applaud when they like what they hear or boo when they don't, I don't see how it is appropriate for Obama to criticize a branch of government that is in attendance and asked to sit on their hands and smile. It's weak sauce to take shots at people who you want to keep their mouth shut.
Wow, what a compelling argument. Care to elaborate? After all, to quote one of YOUR posts, "how does your comment advance either a pro or a con position?" Perhaps you are out of practice. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5170217&postcount=28
I agree with this. I don't want SC judges, really judges at all, taking political stances. Just do their job and stay quiet. Although I would say he wasn't really being political here at all as opposed to commenting on a situation he was put in and doing it with respect to the office. I think the Justices should definitely stop attending SOTU, especially if we are prepared to accept that this won't be the last time a president demonstrates a lack of respect for the Court.
This was the previous time. I am saying if we want to accept that Barack Obama and the presidents that follow him will continue to criticize the court, thus showing them disrespect considering the circumstance and venue, then we should definitely stop having the Court in attendance. Why should they be forced to sit while a president uses attacking them as a campaign tool?
Where else are they answerable for their actions? The over-extension of SC power has been building for years and years, and it's starting to come to a head. "A court which is final and unreviewable needs more careful scrutiny than any other. Unreviewable power is the most likely to self-indulge itself and the least likely to engage in dispassionate self analysis . . . In a country like ours, no public institution or the people who operate it can be above the public debate." - Warren Burger Time for them to be scrutinized.
Idiots like Bush the lesser slammed "activist Judges" all the time in the state of the union. This was not a situation unique to Obama
I don't have a problem with Obama "scrutinizing" their decisions, though I fail to see how that qualifies as being "answerable." Having a specific court decision thrashed in front of the judges isn't holding them accountable or answerable. Not only are they not able to respond in the setting, but by the posts in here we don't really want them to respond outside of the setting either.
In fact, presidents have a history of directly addressing and criticizing the Supreme Court Harding criticized the Supreme Court for overturning the Child Labor Law in his 1922 State of the Union. In 1922, the Supreme Court found the Child Labor Law of 1919 to be unconstitutional. In his State of the Union address, President Warren G. Harding criticized the court for putting "this problem outside the proper domain of Federal regulation until the Constitution is so amended as to give the Congress indubitable authority. I recommend the submission of such an amendment." Reagan criticized the court for its ruling on school prayer. In his 1988 State of the Union address, Reagan expressed his displeasure with the court's recent ruling on school prayer: Reagan directly attacked the Supreme Court for Roe v. Wade. In his 1984 State of the Union address, Reagan attacked the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, during a discussion on abortion: Bush condemned "activist judges" who are "redefining marriage by court order." In his 2004 State of the Union address, Bush criticized "activist judges" who, according to him, were "redefining marriage by court order": http://mediamatters.org/research/201001290019
Why waste band width? My first post expressed my opinion, and my second merely was a statement of disagreement with your opinion, i.e. a conflict of suppositions. Besides, I just sliced open my index finger on a fencepost making typing difficult.
this thread should be closed after mc mark's post. I can't believe some people actually argued as if obama did something groundbreaking. stupid topic
