| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Roberts: Scene at State of Union 'Very Troubling' |
| 2010-03-10 |
| TUSCALOOSA, Ala. -- 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." |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #10 boycott next year. It was a cheap classless partisan act by Obama....but what's unusual about that? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-03-10 21:07 |
| #9 You know, iPods are pretty cheap. |
| Posted by: Eric Jablow 2010-03-10 19:27 |
| #8 Obama could have voiced the same concerns about the USSC in another venue. It would have been in better taste, and more diplomatic. 0 has poor taste and is undiplomatic, but we already knew that. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-03-10 17:07 |
| #7 Just as Obama and his comrades became dictators of US Congressmen, it was a barroom slam and intimadation tactic against another segment of US government that this tyrant wants to "rule over". Congress was viewed as Obama's hood, and the Supreme Court was on his turf and surrounded by his gang. It will get worse. |
| Posted by: Bob Gleanter3083 2010-03-10 10:49 |
| #6 Welcome to Chicago, Justice Roberts. If you think the SOTU address was troubling, wait until you are the target of the Two Minute Hate. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2010-03-10 10:05 |
| #5 The SOTU has become so silly that some brave POTUS should just send in a written SOTU, as was done in the early days of the republic. But the POTUS are such egomaniacs that they would never dream of doing this. In many ways, it is like the stupid requirement that the Queen of England has to annually address parliament, even though they write her speech for her. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-03-10 09:50 |
| #4 Noobama wasn't considering that even if he does manage somehow to get HC Takeover through Congress, there will be constitutional challenges. His behavior at the SOTU will not tip the scales in his favor, that is for sure. |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-03-10 09:34 |
| #3 A good point, John; I was leaning strongly towards the "don't bother to attend next year" position but you've made me re-think that. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2010-03-10 09:34 |
| #2 Roberts said he wonders whether justices should attend the address. I'd say yes, don't boycott such charades although tempting. The power of the Supreme Court needs to be maintained within the Constitutional framework of our country. There is a need to maintain the balance of powers between legislative, judicial, and executive branches. Currently, the executive branch would probably love nothing more than to have this balance ignored. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-03-10 09:00 |
| #1 Hat tip to Justice Scalia. Other Justices please take note. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-03-10 08:51 |