Chief justice unsettled by Obama's criticism of Supreme Court

[soflorattler]

 

John G. Roberts Jr. tells law students that the president's rebuke of a ruling on corporate campaign funding and the subsequent cheering at the State of the Union address were 'very troubling.'


By David G. Savage

Reporting from Washington - Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told law students Tuesday that he found it "very troubling" to be surrounded by loudly cheering critics at President Obama's State of the Union address, saying it was reason enough for the justices not to attend the annual speech to Congress.

"To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we are there," Roberts said at the University of Alabama School of Law.

Obama's speech in January came a week after the high court ruled 5 to 4 that corporations had a free-speech right to spend unlimited sums to elect or defeat candidates for office.

The president, looking down at the six justices in attendance, sharply criticized the Supreme Court for having "opened the floodgates for special interests" to sway elections.

Senate Democrats rose to their feet, applauding and cheering the president's comments.

When asked about this Tuesday, Roberts said the criticism itself did not bother him.

"Anybody can criticize the Supreme Court. . . . I have no problem with that," he said. He objected to criticism in such a public setting, where the justices had no choice but to sit silently.

"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," he said.

"It does cause me to think . . . why are we there?"

Three justices -- John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- did not attend this year's State of the Union. Both Scalia and Thomas have said they believe the speech has become a partisan pep rally that the justices should avoid.

When Obama voiced his criticism, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. shook his head slightly and appeared to say, "Not true."

Responding to Roberts' comments Tuesday night, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement, "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."

Roberts also took issue with the Senate's confirmation process for judges and justices, saying it is contentious and unproductive.

"I think the process is broken down," he said. "The only people who can change it are the senators. I hope they do."*

=============================================================================

* A little undercover lobbying by the chief justice? In the postition that they hold, aren't they suppose to be apolitical in their public expression where the legislative process is concerned? Isn't that what they promised??

In his confirmation hearing:

HATCH: Yesterday you used the analogy of an umpire who calls balls and strikes but neither pitches or bets. Please help the committee sort this out by describing further the role you believe unelected judges play or should play in our system of government.


Are they charged, for example, with using the Constitution affect cultural and political reform, or does the Constitution require that this should be left to the people and their elected representatives?


How can the judiciary sit in constitutional judgment over the legislative and executive branches while still remaining co-equal with them?


If you could kind of take a crack at those various questions, I'd appreciate it.


ROBERTS: Well, Justice White's insight that was quoted by Senator DeWine yesterday, that judges' obligation is to decide cases, really has constitutional significance.


It goes back to Marbury vs. Madison. You know, the Constitution doesn't have any provision that says, when the judges, but the way are to interpret the Constitution and tell us what it means. What it says is that they judges are to decide cases that arise under this Constitution -- this new Constitution -- and under and new laws that the Congress might pass.


And what Chief Justice Marshall explained in Marbury vs. Madison was that, well, if we've got to decide cases, that's our constitutional obligation. We've got to decide whether, in a particular case, something's consistent with the Constitution or not.


So, we have to decide what the Constitution means. And that's what the framers intended.


So, the obligation to decide cases is the only basis for the authority to interpret the Constitution and laws. That means that judges should be careful in making sure that they have a real case in front of them, a real live dispute between parties who have actual injury involved, actual interests at stake because that is the basis for their legitimacy.


And then they're to decide that case as a judge would, not as a legislator would based on any view of what's the best policy but as a judge would based on the law.


ROBERTS: That's why the framers were willing to have the judges decide cases that required them to interpret the Constitution, because they were going to decide it according to the rule of law.


The people who framed our Constitution were jealous of their freedom and liberty. They would not have sat around and said, "Let's take all the hard issues and give them over to the judges." That would have been the furthest thing from their mind.


Now, judges have to decide hard questions when they come up in the context of a particular case. That's their obligation. But they have to decide those questions according to the rule of law -- not their own social preferences, not their policy views, not their personal preferences -- according to the rule of law.

In answer to a question by Dick Durbin during the confirmation hearing:

But let me ask you this: When it comes to this use of executive power, you referred time and again to Justice Jackson in the Youngstown case. Here's what he said: "A judge, like an executive adviser, may be surprised at the poverty of really useful and unambiguous authority applicable to concrete problems of executive powers as they actually present themselves."

Roberts: The idea that the rule of law -- that's the only client I have as a judge. The Constitution is the only interest I have as a judge. The notion that I would compromise my commitment to that principle that has been the lode star of my professional life since I became a lawyer, because of views toward a particular administration is one that I reject entirely. That would be inconsistent with the judicial oath.

[DaBassman]

I have to agree with Roberts on this one.   While I disagree with the court's ruling, I didn't think that was the proper forum for the President to criticize the Court. 

[soflorattler]

If the majority on the court were doing what they were sent there to do (interpret the law according to the constitution) instead of being "activist", I'd ride the bus with you. They've done everything but! And the president rightfully, before congress and the people of the United States, called them out publicly.

[Cholly]

^^^EXACTLY!!!

The court itself has been politicized; a process that started with the nomination of bobby bork and the appointment of tony scalia and his lap dog uncle clarence thomASS.

The gop STACKED the court with reactionaries who not only don't respect the institution, but have SUBVERTED it for political reasons.

The President breaking decorum? Hell, roberts decision WILL forever change the political landscape in this country, and if congress doesn't do something to counter it, we will be headed for "1984" or worse yet, Walter Mosleys "Futureland", an America totally and completely dominated and ruled by corporate interests... NOT something the Founding Fathers had in mind. 

[EB]

I think that Roberts was a clerk for the late Chief Justice William Renquist.  I also think that he (and Alito) was in the Reagan White House during the attacks on civil rights and helped Ted Olsen prepare for the arguments before the case Bush v Gore.  Jeffry Toobin had an interesting interview with Bill Moyers on the Supreme Court and Roberts.  It has been said by some (or many) that Roberts has been for the big money people over the little/middle class/poor people.

Jeffrey Toobin on Bill Moyers

partial transcript

.....

JEFFREY TOOBIN: The Court is subject to presidential and Senate prerogative, and there is always going to be turnover. But if Roberts can keep mustering his majority, it's going to mean it's harder to sue for basically any kind of damages. And a classic example of that is in the environmental movement, where environmentalists in the last completed Supreme Court term lost every single case that was before the justices.

You know, the corporate cases get less publicity, except Citizens United than the abortion cases or the free speech cases. But it is extraordinary how often corporations are winning in this Court. The, you know, anti-trust enforcement is being very much limited by this Court. The regulatory power of the state is being limited by this Court. So, you know, if you look at what the agenda is of the contemporary Republican Party, it matches completely what the Roberts agenda is at the Supreme Court.

BILL MOYERS: This doesn't surprise you, does it? Because in his private practice Mr. Roberts mostly defended corporations against individuals who had sued them. So it's not surprising that he would turn out to be a good friend on the Court of corporate America.

JEFFREY TOOBIN: No. You know, I guess when I was covering his appointment, one of the peculiar things about Supreme Court appointments is you don't really know a lot about what people believe. Because he hadn't been a judge for all that long. But everyone who knew Roberts well said to me, "Just wait. Just wait and see how conservative this guy is."

.....

[DaBassman]

If the majority on the court were doing what they were sent there to do (interpret the law according to the constitution) instead of being "activist", I'd ride the bus with you. They've done everything but! And the president rightfully, before congress and the people of the United States, called them out publicly.

I have no problem with him calling them out.  I just have a problem with the time and place.   IMHO it was as proper as Joe Wilson yelling you lie.   

[Golden Kitten]

82,

Is there another time when the SCOTUS is in the presence of the President or vice versa? Not quite sure it's the same as Joe Wilson...

[soflorattler]

It's not. If anything, he/they had it coming. Had the SCOTUS been going about the business of doing what they were selected to do, this would be a non-issue.

[DaBassman]

82,

Is there another time when the SCOTUS is in the presence of the President or vice versa? Not quite sure it's the same as Joe Wilson...

GK that is the only time.  However, the court and the military leaders can not react to anything being said nor show any disagreement in that forum.  That's like beating up somebody in a wheelchair.  My point was Joe Wilson remarks were inappropriate during the POTUS's speech and IMHO so were the POTUS's at that time and place. I think the POTUS should have spoken out against that ruling just not in that forum.  My opinion.

[DaBassman]

It's not. If anything, he/they had it coming. Had the SCOTUS been going about the business of doing what they were selected to do, this would be a non-issue.

I was always taught that "there is a time and a place for everything."   If they spoke out against the POTUS during his speech on something we knew he did wrong, would we be quite as accepting.  Cliche' #2 "Two wrongs don't make a rights"

[soflorattler]

It's not. If anything, he/they had it coming. Had the SCOTUS been going about the business of doing what they were selected to do, this would be a non-issue.

I was always taught that "there is a time and a place for everything."   If they spoke out against the POTUS during his speech on something we knew he did wrong, would we be quite as accepting.  Cliche' #2 "Two wrongs don't make a rights"

And, as POTUS, it's HIS privilege to choose that time and place. If it was his choice to choose the greatest stage on earth, then so be it. The immediate audience that he stood before when this happened, will be the very body who will have to take up the task of reversing the pro-corporate decisions that this "activist" court has made. I have no problem with it. We will just have to agree to disagree...

[DaBassman]

It's not. If anything, he/they had it coming. Had the SCOTUS been going about the business of doing what they were selected to do, this would be a non-issue.

I was always taught that "there is a time and a place for everything."   If they spoke out against the POTUS during his speech on something we knew he did wrong, would we be quite as accepting.  Cliche' #2 "Two wrongs don't make a rights"

And, as POTUS, it's HIS privilege to choose that time and place. If it was his choice to choose the greatest stage on earth, then so be it. The immediate audience that he stood before when this happened, will be the very body who will have to take up the task of reversing the pro-corporate decisions that this "activist" court has made. I have no problem with it. We will just have to agree to disagree...

That being the case the same argument could have been used for that idiot Joe Wilson. As for the audience, IMO they ain't did squat on health care, so don't expect them to do much on that. I based my argument on the protocol and decorum normally used in that situation.  But as you said we will agree to disagree.

[Golden Kitten]

I think he did say something about it before the State of the Union. I seem to recall that it was right after the decision was rendered. I get what you're saying but when/how would you have preferred he say it to them IF they don't ever interact except at the State of the Union? He could possibly summon them to the WH but doesn't mean they have to come...

[DaBassman]

I think he did say something about it before the State of the Union. I seem to recall that it was right after the decision was rendered. I get what you're saying but when/how would you have preferred he say it to them IF they don't ever interact except at the State of the Union? He could possibly summon them to the WH but doesn't mean they have to come...

I can't in my lifetime ever recall a President addressing the court directly because of a bad ruling and there have been many. It just simply not done because of the separation of powers. He should be working with Congress to find a way to right what is considered wrong.  The court is not suppose to be, okay I said suppose, a political body.  It can be perceived that the POTUS is trying to disrupt the balance of power as afforded by the constitution by asserting political pressure on the court. Again my opinion.

[Cholly]

^^^He didn't address the court; he addressed that wrong-for-America decision.

And remember; he prefaced his remark by saying "with all due deference to seperations of power..."

82 I understand your point. I do. And under ordinary circumstances I would agree with you.

But as stated earlier, the Supreme Court has become an arm of the gop and neo-con reaction-ism in it's effort to push forward the republiklan agenda.

It is NOT deserving of the respect roberts is crying about.