U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Obama's State of the Union address was "very troubling" and the annual speech has "degenerated to a political pep rally."I agree. No matter what you think of the merits of the case, it was a lousy thing to do. As Theodore Roosevelt said, the president has the bully pulpit. It's not necessary to be a bully when using the pulpit, however.
Obama chided the court, with the justices seated before him in their black robes, for its decision on a campaign finance case.
Responding to a University of Alabama law student's question, Roberts said anyone was free to criticize the court, and 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."
Roberts then made the larger point:
Roberts told the students he wonders whether justices should attend the speeches.
"I'm not sure why we're there," said Roberts, a Republican nominee who joined the court in 2005.
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. Six of the nine justices attended Obama's address.
It's worth remembering what Obama said that night:
As Samuel Alito pointed out in a very quiet way that night, what Obama said wasn't correct. But we'll leave that aside. It's inevitable that the Supreme Court is involved in political issues, because just about everything is political these days. But one thing is certain -- Roberts is correct in questioning whether the Supremes should be part of the kabuki of a State of the Union address. And no one should have to listen to any politician, even the President of the United States, level a charge against him without having a chance to respond."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 in January.
9 comments:
Obama, the man who promised to transcend political nastiness, has been a grubby piece of work. He exemplifies the word "politician."
Show me anyone who has risen out of the corrupt quagmire this is known as Chicago Politics that isn't dirty on some level. Obama is a product of his upbringing.
You can take the politician out of Chicago but you can't take the Chicago corruption out of the politician.
this isnt about coruption. its about class.
and obama's lack of it.
Sure, Gino, I agree he's got no class, but I won't ignore Obama's use of Chicago dirty politics tricks, win at all costs... take no prisoners... it's what he was taught... it's what brung him to POWER!
I'm inclined to think that corrupt people don't have a lot of class.
Maybe there needs to be a separate blog where you guys can just repeat over and over again how Chicago politicians and everyone associated are nasty and immoral. As to the point of the post, I didn't know from the post itself that it had anything to do with coming from Chicago, or that coming from Chicago proves anything.
Anyway, I don't see why the court needs to be present, either - but in light of the way they helped build their own reputation of yielding to partisan bullcrap, the complaint comes off as whiny.
Maybe there needs to be a separate blog where you guys can just repeat over and over again how Chicago politicians and everyone associated are nasty and immoral. As to the point of the post, I didn't know from the post itself that it had anything to do with coming from Chicago, or that coming from Chicago proves anything.
Originally, the point of the post was Roberts' opinion itself. The matter of Chicago entered in the comments. So we'll put you down as disagreeing with one or more commenters. Moving on,
but in light of the way they helped build their own reputation of yielding to partisan bullcrap, the complaint comes off as whiny.
The Supreme Court can choose which specific cases they try, but I don't know that they "yield to partisan bullcrap" so much as they end up being involved in matters that are inevitably partisan. It's been part of the equation since Marbury v. Madison.
But Roberts is correct -- using a forum that only the President has to beat up on another branch of the government, which is unable to respond to the specific criticism because of the way the event and the system are designed, is lousy. Which is the original point of the post.
Amanda, can you bring yourself to admit that Obama acted in a classless manner unbecoming of the office of President?
Post a Comment