An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
On Obama Confronting Supreme Court During State of Union Speech
Was it smart? In this instance, Justice Alito mouthed the words “Not true.” Unprecedented? Bad politics in terms of the Court’s swing votes? Here’s a roundup from one perspective.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
15 Responses to “On Obama Confronting Supreme Court During State of Union Speech”
It was a truth to power moment, which is something the supreme is usually unsulated from. I say good on Obama. As for Alito, his biases are no secret. There is a reason he was picked by the last administration and it wasn't because of his neutral agenda and reverence for the USC. These people are supposed to be protecting the constitution and by doing so the people of the united states. They are certainly not supposed to be playing partisan politics. I'd say they got off easy. As for breaches of decorum, I don't think we've had any fistfights between members of congress lately, which has happened before.
Who cares? It's not like the Roberts Supreme Court cares about minor things like “Stare Decicis”. Not that the Rehnquist court was anything to write home about…
It's only a matter of time before Roe V Wade goes out the window, conceivably Griswold…
How is this different from the cry of 'activist judges'? It seems like both political parties have been all about criticizing the SCOTUS. The activist Supreme Court thing was all the talk from the Republicans before Roberts and Alito got confirmed. Remember Justice Sunday? I believe quite a few of our Senators (including then Majority leader Frist) participated in that event.
FDR proposed a court stacking plan to intimidate the Supremes into discontinuing the practice of finding New Deal legislation unconstitutional. Presidential criticism is not new, and, in FDR's case, it worked.
Multiple “conservative” presidents have also criticized court decisions, particularly Roe v. Wade. Sarah Palin was asked which court decisions she disagreed with during the '08 campaign. Many have ridden the wave of religious “base” support to multiple election wins on the promise to “change the Court” and get Roe overturned.
Presidents and candidates criticizing Court decisions is part of our political tradition. Calling out Obama for criticizing a Court decision, as does the link to which Joe refers us , is disingenuous at best.
Obama was standing up for American citizens. The Supreme Court deserves to be lashed in any setting for allowing foreigners to actually influence our own laws, which should be about protecting the US, not profit for foreigners (and the same goes for US corporations).
Why wouldn't Obama support US citizens and their rights? Don't we want a president who will fight for us all the time? Or do we just want a wallflower?
I think it was a breach of decorum on both sides – the President shouldn't have brought it up in the SOTU and Alito shouldn't have responded. I think it was a mistake for the President because it's now a distraction from bigger and more important issues. SOTU speeches are usually forgotten in short order, but this aspect, like last year's “you lie” moment, will probably live on and be remembered.
The State of the Union is an address to Congress. The Supreme Court justices are invitees and not required to be present. The President does not have to scale back what needs to be addressed to Congress so as to not “hurt feelings”. He premised the comment with “With all due deference to separation of powers”. The President is informing Congress that they need to act to act in legislative form as to shore up the rules. Sorry if the Supreme's feel slighted. As much as the Supreme Court is a branch of government – so is the Chief Executive and so is Congress.
I'm somewhere in between Andy and muffler's reactions on this.
To Andy's point- sometimes distractions are deliberate, or welcomed, anyway. Who's to say that the Obama team really wants people to focus on the policy points in the speech?
As for decorum- muffler's probably right, but at the same time, if he's going to 'go there', then it's expected that the object of his scorn will have a human reaction to the criticism so it's also inappropriate to act as though Alito's response was a breach in decorum.
These people are supposed to be protecting the constitution in the service of the people of the united states. They are certainly not supposed to be playing partisan politics. I'd say they got off easy. As for breaches of decorum, I don't think we've had any fistfights between members of congress lately, which has happened before.
”~ J Spencer
*********
Yes, they deserve impeachment for essentially repealing the 14th Amendment and for placing our national security in jeopardy all in one stroke. One of them at least should be made an example.
lol …some of the guys I was with who listened to the whole SOTU, said they wanted Obama to walk down and cold-cock Boehner in the face..lol.. I have to admit, there is something about the schmarmy look on that guys face… I wonder though what Obama's ratings would be if he did that? I think it would've had appeal to the independants. You could've heard the cheers from outer space probably..lol..
Where is all the angst over Roe v Wade breaking stare decisis itself? Invoking stare decisis as an inviolable principle in favor of maintaining Roe v Wade is like a thief complaining that someone is out to steal his stolen goods.
The debate as to whether or not to overturn the decision is complex and emotional. It ought not be cluttered up with nonsense.
It was in poor taste. But childish whining is not surprising when it's an appeal to childish people.
What was notably debasing was the expressed desire to subvert this defense of constitutional rights.
The irony in wanting to subvert justice, and anger at a legitimate ruling by those who have sought and defended deliberate misconduct in the form of activist arrogation of legislative powers by the judiciary, is probably lost on those to whom Obama was appealing, too.
“Where is all the angst over Roe v Wade breaking stare decisis itself?”
As if that's not bad enough, even the crown jewel of that activist ruling, the “trimester rule,” fails to be understood by the Usual Suspects. (Nor could even one per cent of those people understand how the ruling relates to Baker v. Carr, for example. Many of them can't even think of Griswold.)
Where's all the angst over Dred Scott then? How far back do you distractionists want to go? Focus.
I wasn't 'angsting' over stare decisis. In fact I was asking why it makes sense to angst over it on Roe.
Angst you very much.
“Where's all the angst over Dred Scott then?”
Thom Hartmann chose, as his clown act, to say this recent decision is the new Dred Scott decision.