Chief justice chides State of the Union as 'political pep rally'

[Obama 2012 1,714]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/10/oba...dex.html?hpt=T1

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Simmering tension between the White House and U.S. Supreme Court spilled into public this week when Chief Justice John Roberts labeled the political atmosphere at the State of the Union address "very troubling."

With six members of the court a few feet away in the audience, President Obama used the occasion to criticize the conservative majority's ruling in a campaign finance case.

Roberts on Tuesday told students at the University of Alabama that such partisanship at the annual address in Congress leaves him questioning whether the justices should continue to attend, as most do, in accord with tradition.

"It does cause me to think whether or not it makes sense for us to be there," Roberts said. "To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we're there."

Roberts, 55, was among the five justices who ruled in favor of loosening congressionally mandated restrictions on so-called "corporate" spending in federal elections. The decision opened up spending for a range of corporations, unions and advocacy groups.

The White House was quick to attack Roberts indirectly, focusing on the ruling itself, and Obama continued the criticism in his January address, saying, "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."

Political fallout from the ruling continues. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing Wednesday on legislative efforts to blunt the impact of the court's decision.

Roberts on Tuesday said people have a right to respond to what the courts do, but context should be considered.

"Some people, I think, have an obligation to criticize what we do, given their office, if they think we've done something [wrong]," he said in response to a student's question. "So I have no problems with that. 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 to the requirements of protocol, has to sit there, expressionless, I think is very troubling."

Members of Congress sat behind the justices at the January 27 address, many applauding when Obama made his remarks about the court's election spending case.

Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said Wednesday that Roberts would have no further public comment on the issue.

Sources close to Roberts said he has grown increasingly frustrated at what he views as the growing partisanship aimed at the federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court.

"The incident at the State of the Union only reinforced his concern the courts have become a political football," said one colleague, who has spoken with the chief justice since the speech.

"He's tried -- publicly and privately -- to reach across the branches and sought to reinforce a level of mutual respect and understanding for their work. He felt like those [Obama's] remarks really hurt what the court is perceived to be doing."

These sources spoke on condition of anonymity since they are not authorized to comment officially on Roberts' behalf.

The chief justice invited Obama and Vice President Joe Biden to a private reception at the court shortly after the two were elected in December 2008. The meeting with the justices was designed as a friendly get-together with the incoming president, a former constitutional law professor.

Justice Samuel Alito was the only one of the nine-member bench not to attend. He was criticized for his reaction to Obama's remark in January. Cameras captured him shaking his head and apparently mouthing the words "not true" as the president spoke.

As a U.S. senator from Illinois, Obama voted against both Alito and Roberts during their confirmation hearings to the high court.

Justices Antonin Scalia and John Paul Stevens have said they do not regularly attend the annual address because of its partisan nature. Scalia has said the justices -- wearing their robes -- are forced to "sit there like bumps on a log" and are not supposed to show any reaction to what is being said.

Roberts also told the Alabama students the process of Senate confirmation of top judicial nominees has become too partisan, criticizing lawmakers who use the hearings to score political points.

[scandal 951]

I read about this earlier today. I'm glad it got posted here for discussion.

I think both are right, in this instance.

I think Obama is correct on the merits - the SCOTUS decision was a particularly bad one in my view, one that set a terrible precedent and opened the door for even more massive amounts of money to coerce and twist our election process. I think we need a Constitutional Amendment to fix this dangerous ruling.

However, I think Roberts is also correct. The State of the Union, with members of the Court present, was probably not the time or the place to make that particular argument. Obama has many opportunities to get on national TV and make his pitch. He should have made this challenge at another time.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

It was a ####### move by a man-child President.

[scandal 951]

It was a ####### move by a man-child President.

Sez you.

I'm sure you prefer classic presidential moves like "I am not a crook!" or "Mission Accomplished" much better.

[Ali G. 37]

It was a ####### move by a man-child President.

Agreed. While I agree with Obama and am not a fan of the way the US legal system works deciding the fate of your country, it was not the right place for it - it was no different to 'you lie!'.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Booyah

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The State of the Union speech seems pointless at the best of times - little more than an exercise in back slapping.

[Ali G. 37]

The State of the Union speech seems pointless at the best of times - little more than an exercise in back slapping.

Hence we they don't use such shenanigans under the parliamentary system. Have you ever heard the prime minster 'address the nation'?

Edited March 11, 2010 by Booyah

[lostinblue 1,989]

Now they maybe will decide to rule on a birth certificate.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hence we they don't use such shenanigans under the parliamentary system. Have you ever heard the prime minster 'address the nation'?

Yes

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The SCOTUS may attend the SOTU, they have no obligation to do so and not all the judges attended. I can see Roberts' point (take a beating and not be able to react in any way) but again, nobody made him go.

[scandal 951]

The SCOTUS may attend the SOTU, they have no obligation to do so and not all the judges attended. I can see Roberts' point (take a beating and not be able to react in any way) but again, nobody made him go.

Correct. However it has been a long standing tradition that they do attend. Obama surely knew that, and must have anticipated the predicament he would put them in with his comments.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Correct. However it has been a long standing tradition that they do attend. Obama surely knew that, and must have anticipated the predicament he would put them in with his comments.

If you can't take the heat...

Look, the SOTU is the annual policy and agenda speech of the President. He has the right to respectfully disagree with a rather controversial decision the court made and call on the legislator to find a legislative solution to ensure that corporate purchasing power in US politics isn't strengthened but reigned in. Which is really all he did. Personally, I wish the President came out swinging much more often.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[Danno 1,228]

If you can't take the heat...

Look, the SOTU is the annual policy and agenda speech of the President. He has the right to respectfully disagree with a rather controversial decision the court made and call on the legislator to find a legislative solution to ensure that corporate purchasing power in US politics isn't strengthened but reigned in. Which is really all he did. Personally, I wish the President came out swinging much more often.

Your view only has merit if all parties present know what the ground rules are when they decide to attend.

The Politicians can react to the presidents comments but decorum dictates the Black robes sit impartial and not even applaud.

So it leaves them in a position to be more or less defenseless.

It wan't the crime of the century but rather a small cheap shot or maybe it was just something not well thought-out.

[scandal 951]

Your view only has merit if all parties present know what the ground rules are when they decide to attend.

The Politicians can react to the presidents comments but decorum dictates the Black robes sit impartial and not even applaud.

So it leaves them in a position to be more or less defenseless.

It wan't the crime of the century but rather a small cheap shot or maybe it was just something not well thought-out.

I agree with you Danno.

And what troubles me about it isn't whether Roberts or any of the justices got their panties in a wad.

It's the perceived attack, in front of a live national audience, on the institution of the court itself - an independent and co-equal branch of government.

I bet if Obama could do it again, he might very well rethink that move and do it differently.

And Big Dog - I entirely agree that the SCOTUS decision on corporate "speech" was an awful one. I've said as much earlier in this thread, and in other threads.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I agree with you Danno.

And what troubles me about it isn't whether Roberts or any of the justices got their panties in a wad.

It's the perceived attack, in front of a live national audience, on the institution of the court itself - an independent and co-equal branch of government.

I bet if Obama could do it again, he might very well rethink that move and do it differently.

And Big Dog - I entirely agree that the SCOTUS decision on corporate "speech" was an awful one. I've said as much earlier in this thread, and in other threads.

I agree with you, but the SCOTUS didn't have a choice.

This is the fault of congress on 'mass' legislation.

If something in a bill is deemed 'unconstitutional' then the whole bill becomes null and void. You can't 'nit pick' a bill (atleast not anymore anyway).

The corporate part can be re-added in a separate bill that could probably hold, but the fact of the matter is, is the legislation also blocked individuals from making political ads within a certain time frame as well.

This is one of the reasons I am adamantly against attaching "laws" on top of spending bills, etc.. that have nothing to do with it. If one thing goes, the whole thing goes.