Alito Mouthing Off
I agree with Glenn Greenwald that “the behavior of Justice Alito at [Wednesday] night’s State of the Union address — visibly shaking his head and mouthing the words ‘not true’ when Obama warned of the dangers of the Court’s Citizens United ruling — was a serious and substantive breach of protocol that reflects very poorly on Alito and only further undermines the credibility of the Court. It has nothing to do with etiquette and everything to do with the Court’s ability to adhere to its intended function.”
And this is why Supreme Court justices, if they can’t control themselves, probably shouldn’t attend these events.
More Greenwald — essential reading:
There’s a reason that Supreme Court Justices — along with the Joint Chiefs of Staff — never applaud or otherwise express any reaction at a State of the Union address. It’s vital — both as a matter of perception and reality — that those institutions remain apolitical, separate and detached from partisan wars. The Court’s pronouncements on (and resolutions of) the most inflammatory and passionate political disputes retain legitimacy only if they possess a credible claim to being objectively grounded in law and the Constitution, not political considerations. The Court’s credibility in this regard has — justifiably — declined substantially over the past decade, beginning with Bush v. Gore (where 5 conservative Justices issued a ruling ensuring the election of a Republican President), followed by countless 5-4 decisions in which conservative Justices rule in a way that promotes GOP political beliefs, while the more “liberal” Justices do to the reverse (Citizens United is but the latest example). Beyond that, the endless, deceitful sloganeering by right-wing lawyers about “judicial restraint” and “activism” — all while the judges they most revere cavalierly violate those “principles” over and over — exacerbates that problem further (the unnecessarily broad scope of Citizens United is the latest example of that, too, and John “balls and strikes” Roberts may be the greatest hypocrite ever to sit on the Supreme Court). All of that is destroying the ability of the judicial branch to be perceived — and to act — as one of the few truly apolitical and objective institutions.
Justice Alito’s flamboyantly insinuating himself into a pure political event, in a highly politicized manner, will only hasten that decline.
I’m not terribly enraged by what Alito did, I must admit, but of course his inappropriate mouthing off is part of a much larger problem:
What’s most disturbing here is the increasing trend of right-wing Justices inserting themselves ever more aggressively into overtly political disputes in a way that seriously undermines their claims of apolitical objectivity.
*****
It was clear from Sam Alito’s confirmation hearing and his record of appellate opinions that he is a dogmatic, state-revering, right-wing judge. But last night, he unmasked himself as a politicized and intemperate Republican as well.
Now, it’s not that we’re all too “squeamish,” as Jonathan Chait suggests. It’s one thing for overt partisans like Joe Wilson to mouth off, quite another for a Supreme Court justice to do so (if inaudibly). We don’t expect politicians to be neutral and objective, but we do expect the men and women who sit on the highest court in the land not to be outwardly partisan, that is, to express their partisanship in public. We may know that they are partisans, or at least that they have political views, but we want them to put their professional objectives first.
It hardly matters that Alito was right. Sort of. (Linda Greenhouse notes that while Obama’s statement that the Court “reversed a century of law” in “open[ing] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign companies — to spend without limit in our elections” was incorrect, strictly speaking, “the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions.”) The point is that Alito both should have known better and represents a disturbing trend in the conservative judiciary, the emergence, and dominance, of partisan right-wing activism in support of the Republican Party.
Inappropriate though it was, are we really at all surprised that Alito, or someone like him, mouthed off?
(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)
opinions powered by SendLove.to
46 Responses to “Alito Mouthing Off”
Inappropriate though it was, are we really at all surprised that Obama mouthed off?
My expectations for SC appointments are extremely low by now. Alito was wrong, and his defenders are not only wrong but are allowing themselves to be blinded to the dangers of overturning 100 years of precedent. Both Reagan and Bush routinely criticized SC decisions and I never heard republicans complain about it. For a group that used to make so much noise expressing concern about judicial activism, they sure did go 180 degrees to this ruling. Perhaps hypocrisy is simply an official part of the GOP platform now.
Repeat your lie all you want (and it is a lie to say it now, because too many people, even on the Left have conceded that it was a factually wrong statement). It still doesn't make it true.
Heck, even the initial post by Michael Stickings points to a link to an article by a very left-leaning pundit who concedes the “100 years of precedent” statement just isn't true.
I don't like the ruling itself, but the hoopla over his silent muttering is way overblown. The energy his attackers spend on it is misdirected — it draws attention away from the main point and makes them look shallow.
When you've got a good point, stick to it.
Of course the characterization of the this as a “lie” is to be expected from someone with the “limited” sensibilities you've shown in your brief time here. I'll cut you a bit of slack here and just say it's more complex than you realize. Here's a section from the link you mentioned:
Agreed. Alito isn't a very good judge, but this was a smaller error brought on seemingly unconsciously.
“Inappropriate though it was, are we really at all surprised that Obama mouthed off?”~ Transvestite Avatar
******
Yes but he's not a Supreme Court Justice. Flaunting your low scores in highschool in reading comprehension isn't probably a good idea coupled with your avatar. Who are you really and why would anyone defend the indefensible? Even hardcore republican friends of mine are INCENSED that their elections are now open to sway by companies comprised of foreign interests. They are in a state of shock and disbelief at the betrayal.
Like we all are. That SCOTUS decision wasn't partisan, it was treasonous. It betrayed the entire nation from far left to far right and all points in between. The only people who are on the internet or elsewhere defending it are on payroll for some corporation. Mark my words. So who's paying you to post here Schaden? It's OK, we know..
I have to agree with Silhouette here, this ruling transcends partisanship. The defending of it really betrays a level of cynicism and dysfunction that is part of the greater problem our country suffers from.
If you are going to insult me, than I will return the favor. Your addled brain does not seem to be able to comprehend that what was overturned has been on the books only since the 70's, and your own link post states
what was overturned is 30 years or so old, not 100's. The fact that you cannot read, or if you can cannot read for comprehension, that which you yourself post is a clear sing of your obvious dementia.
To Michael Stickings,
I guess the fact that Oblahma LIED about what the court decision was has nothing to do with your point of view.I can see from your choices of words and phrases that you are a stone non-moderate.I would hate to see where the USA would be today if your Supreme Court were ruling.But I am sure you would have a high position in our new totalitarian kingdom.
Alito is a member of a third, co-equal branch of government that has as much right to react when maligned by Obama as Obama has to distort the truth in attacking it. The independence of the judiciary is no more compromised by a Justice silently mouthing disagreement than by a President haranguing the Justices in public. The President deserves respect when he offers it; he is not the King.
If Presidents don't want people to react to their speeches they should get the facts straight and not berate the Justices in public to their face.
This is a non-issue. Greenwald is just being ridiculous again. The liberals are so desperate for something to toot their horn about that they go on and on over this as if it made a whit's worth of difference. To anything. It doesn't.
Actuallly I never said anything about your reading comprehesion before this, but I can now see that Sil is right about it being an issue. Sorry about your confusion, but maybe you should take a break before you embarrass yourself further.
What is Alito anyway?
He is an embarrassment to this country and so are the other justices that voted saying that “property”, a business or corporation, is a “person”, having the same rights. Next they will be granting tax exemption to “property” for political advertisements.
Alito is a political appointee, with the emphasis on “political”. With undisciplined Supreme Court justices and public mouthing off at our elected President becoming popular AND media like CNN and Fox justifying even condoning such behavior….our nation may be at the end of it’s relevance in the world.
Last comment on this directed from me to you.
You simply seem to be the only person in the US (besides Obama) that thinks Citizens United overturned 100+ years of precedence. It just plain did not, and all your caterwauling does not change that simple fact.
Wasn't it the Left that recently loved to say you are entitled to you own set of opinions, but not your own set of facts?
Yes it did, otherwise why do it in the first place?
I think tidbits (a lawyer, and a class act) also thinks that.
I don't care how many years it turned back, the money flow from congress to business, or vice-versa, has to be stopped. tidbits also pointed out that the Judicial Reorganization act of 1937 (without naming it) pushed the SCOTUS to overturn limits on congressional spending, which opened the floodgates (in US v Butler) to corporatism in the first place.
Shaden… : If laying claim to a minor detail (one I'm not even married to) makes you more comfortable while the big picture continues to escape your vision, then you'd better hang on to it for all you're worth.
I really don't like to get personnel about these things but I am a little tired of certain kinds of people.Those folks who have been fortunate enough to get a bit of education-maybe some nice vocabulary-good job but a much lower position than they should have(according to them).These people always use words like 'tolerant' 'intellectual' 'deep thinker' to describe themselves.They are generally kind of cowardly.Most of them have never defended their country or even another family member or friend.They have no conception of crime or poverty or abuse unless it slips past the guardpost at their gated community.And after they have had a couple of cocktails at the office party,you would find that most of them are closet racists.But they do know how to complain and they do know how to insult others in the most hateful ways The best is that they know everything that is wrong with the world but they never have a solution unless it involves someone elses time and money.I guess commoner stupid types like myself will never understand their master plan-but considering there are only about 5 million of THEM and 300 million of ME,why don't they take their money and genius and all of them go to Haiti where they can all be gods.And they wouldn't have to worry about rebuilding anything.I'm sure they could hire someone like me to do the dirty work.
This entire brouhaha exemplifies leftist hysteria.
Citizens United doesn't hurt the left. Corporations give almost exactly equal contributions to both left and right. On the other hand: Unions give 97% of contributions to the left. Most persons on the left understand this. Many left side “complaints” are actually political posturing for purpose of positioning Dems as virtuous and Repubs as unvirtuous.
Other left side “complaints” (see: Schumer) are political posturing as a tactic to enable – upon occasion of Stevens' retirement – the nomination and confirmation of a SCOTUS justice who is as left leaning as possible. William Jacobsen of Legal Insurrection: “The argument will go that since Alito and Roberts are activist on the right, there must be an activist on the left appointed as a counterbalance.” This political tactic is why Pres. Obama bashed SCOTUS in the first place: Pres. Obama is laying political groundwork for justifying the nomination and confirmation of a very leftist SCOTUS justice. The unspoken message of Pres. Obama's SOTU bash: We must have a justice to counterbalance the extremism of Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas!
Alito
Fer cryin out loud: Alito just reacted, out his own personal sense of justice, at the SCOTUS decision being blatantly mischaracterized. Do the persons criticizing Alito have no familiarity with typical human reactions? Alito takes pride in his work, studied and worked hard on Citizens United, then had to sit and watch his work be lied about. Humans are human. The Anchoress:
Obama is the President of the United States, and he had the pulpit, the microphone, the cameras and the attention of the whole chamber. Alito was one robed judge among 7, barely noticeable in the crowd. The president’s remarks were premeditated. The justice’s muttering was reflexive. One act meant to be both disrespectful and elicit a partisan response, the other was probably not even voiced at all and was meant to satisfy the justice’s own sense of, well, justice.
The Anchoress receives email saying: Bush did it too! She responds:
While we’re at it, I wonder when the left is going to realize that validating the actions of President Obama by bringing up the actions or near-actions of a president [GWB] whose every move they despised does not really help them in their defense.
[...]
It is a crazy way to live -saying what your guy is doing is okay, because the guy you thought was an evil moron did it first – it is cognitive dissonance to the nth degree. And when the argument is used in this case, citing one president’s broad statement against another president’s focused and narrow admonishment, well…it doesn’t work at all.
And, finally, Glenn Greenwald writes dreck; obscures truth when it suits him. His Alito article is tiresome manure. He calls Alito a “partisan sideshow”? Bullshit. Again, notice that “partisan” is exactly part of the political message Schumer and Obama are trying to send. Greenwald either believes or pretends Schumer and Obama are being forthright, i.e. Greenwald either believes or pretends to believe Alito decided Citizens United based upon Alito's desire to help Repubs be elected to office. Greenwald is making a scurrilous charge. Ann Althouse:
Alito's response didn't signify political disagreement. It was simply self-defense — a defense of the Court. It meant: We decide cases according to the law. That is apolitical.
[...]
Shaking one's head and mouthing 2 or 3 words is “flamboyant”? Alito was sitting in his seat and he evinced a subtle reaction to a severe political attack. That doesn't make what he did “highly politicized.” If anyone was “highly politicized,” it was Obama. Alito's response was more of a reflex, and it was, I would assume, grounded in a belief that the Court does what it is supposed to do — decide cases according to the law.
As to Greenwald's convenient deceitfulness, Althouse finds a examples:
[Greenwald:] “While Presidents do not commonly criticize the Court in the SOTU address, it is far from unprecedented either.”
[Greenwald's] link goes to Tony Mauro at The Legal Times, who says that this kind of talk is “almost unprecedented.” “Almost unprecedented” = “far from unprecedented”? Come on, Glenn. Your sleaziness is showing.
[...]
Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin documents that roughly 25% of Franklin Roosevelt's 1937 State of the Union address was devoted to criticizing the Supreme Court and various rulings which struck down his domestic legislation.
Roosevelt's attack on the Court — quoted by Balkin — was, at the most severe point: “We do not ask the Courts to call non-existent powers into being, but we have a right to expect that conceded powers or those legitimately implied shall be made effective instruments for the common good.” Think about how much more respectful that was toward the Court than the blow that made Samuel Alito flinch last night.
Greenwald concludes:
“Whatever one thinks of the one paragraph of Obama's address devoted to the Citizens United ruling, it was not 'unprecedented.'”
Who is he quoting there? Balkin doesn't say “unprecedented.” Is it Mauro's “almost unprecedented”? For all his annoying verbiage, Greenwald can't get anywhere in this effort to show that Obama was just fine and Alito did something outrageous. Pathetic!
Well, my recollection is that he said that it did not directly overturn the 100 year old precedents, but it may have redefined some of them. I could be wrong.
Probably like a fish caught in a net. What are you carping about? You're not going to hook me with this red herring.
And yes, he is a class act. I wonder how he would look in fishnets?'
Well, you certainly are Not a class act. But, hey they (?) need some one to kick around and although not a Schmoo, you will have to do. However, I'm getting tired of the the “level of willful ignorance” of the sanctity of avatars and icons evidenced lately in this forum. Insulting, and mouthing derogatory epitaphs at innocent avatars is demeaning and is probably perpetrated by: “Those folks who have been fortunate enough to get a bit of education-maybe some nice vocabulary. Avatar Discrimination (AD) should be the next case for the ACLU as they wasted too much time protecting corporation's freedom of speech.
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about? If we did not have instant replay, and digital focus, and polemicist news sights, then we would never have heard about it. In contrast to Joe “You lie” which was shouted and heard by the entire chamber, this seems like a trivial an understandable reaction by the justice.
yup.
Just let it roll off of your back.
Just let it roll off of your back.”
Sniffle, OK.
Additionally, what about the overturning of the years of previous years of precedent before the 70s dating back to the founding fathers……, not any mention of that of course. In otherwords they raised the stake 30, the SCOTUS raised it by about 200.
[Probably like a fish caught in a net. What are you carping about? You're not going to hook me with this red herring]–
Why Prof, you absolutely astound me sometimes! This is excellent! Which reminds me, I think I'm going to drag a minnow behind my sail boat next week. See if it's warm enough to catch something….maybe a duck?
Bwaaahahahaha…..—à imfinity
I am totally unable to follow what you mean and where you are going with that comment. Please clarify. Thanks.
“Inappropriate though it was, are we really at all surprised that Obama mouthed off?”
This has precedents — the attempted strong-arming of Fox and Stalinist “denunciation” and “informant” tactics sought against Fox and dissenters such as “Tea Party” rallies and in the media, in general. (The rest of the media, liberal and viewing Fox as something akin to cancer in common perception, defended Fox — they knew they were next). “How dare anyone ruin My agenda!”
This was a cheap shot by someone exhibiting the same attitude as many lefties currently, who don't understand the ruling, misunderstand and misuse “activism,” and whose hatred for non-activist justices who don't make PC rulings competes currently with corporation-bashing and obscession.
Of course, for Obama to have engaged in this poor behavior (and possibly dishonest behavior) is not surprising, given he appeared to be acting like so many lefties, and doing to appeal to lefties (mainly emotionally, I suspect). Also stating a desire to subvert the ruling was additionally childish and low, and probably meant also to appeal to the lefties listening or watching the address.
“The liberals are so desperate for something to toot their horn about that they go on and on over this as if it made a whit's worth of difference.”
Not only desperation — anger.
Of pathological anger they are exhibiting, for no valid reason whatsoever, there is no doubt here.
Hah! First they came for the Avatars…
That's not at all an unusual occurrence with Leonidas. I have the same trouble.
Not yours.
I have to admit that hearing conservatives defending the Supreme Court is hilarious. Has no one else paid attention to how big the flip they've made is from deriding the judiciary to defending it?
“how big the flip they've made is from deriding the judiciary to defending it”
The big flip is by the liberal critics howling and worse about this decision — they're extra-Flipped Out.
Jim, you are dead smack on the money, the hypocrisy is only slightly less funny than the people here trying to defend it. It would be more funny if it didn't feel so much like laughing at demented little children. Oh well…
You gotta love Schadenfreude's concise truths. The woman (at least I think Schaden is a woman based on the Avatar) knows what she's talking about. If I were in Alito's position, I probably would've done the same. I respect Obama, but he should not be able to wrongly criticize Alito's decision unchallenged. I don't agree with many of Alito's views, but I respect a man who defends himself from falsehoods.
Alito's and the decision's (First Amendment's) critics prefer falsehoods, though. (Not a surprise, sadly.)
LOL. Don't know your 70's cult classics, I see.
Schadenfreude is no woman, I guarantee it.
In fact, his avatar is also known as Dr. Frank N Furter, from The Rocky Horror Picture Show.
Which, if you think about it, is highly ironic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Enr4W6FsSpk
LOL.
As I was driving to work tonight there was a story on NPR about the Tea Bagger convention.
A man was shouting “Obama's an idiot” in the background. Then the announcer mentions this man happens to be wearing a Darth Vader costume. I mean, are people really that thick that they don't see the irony here?
That's demonstrated so beautifully by a number of regulars here: a middle aged man so enraged by his fear that he's dressed up as Darth Vader screaming about other people being idiots.
Vera-
You're right- I don't know my 70s cult classics. I am 19 and so was not around before 1990. I have never heard of Dr. Frank N Furter so I don't understand the irony. Fill me in when you have a sec
Watch the You-Tube and then we'll talk.
Sweet Transvestite is one of the all time classic musical numbers in cinema.
Absolutely delicious.
As with many of my fellow TMV voices, I hated the SCOTUS ruling on this. It was a small barrier against corporatism that is now gone.
The first amendment was created for the people. Thus, it should not be used as a crutch for corporations. Some of these corporations are headquartered in foreign countries. Doesn't that leave a possibility of foreign power intrustion into our government which is SUPPOSED to be by the people?
The spending of money by corporations can be regulated – that's Constitutional. The allowing of corporations the ability to overshout the people's voice is not.
Whether you're looking for action, adventure, intrigue, romance, raciness, comedy, special effects, satire, science, history, irony, a complex twisting plot, or impeccable acting there's some sort of weird, lame imitation of it somewhere in there. You go to a showing for the audience, not the movie.
You're at the perfect age for it. Any town with a college should have a theater close by with a regular showing. You've got to experience it at least twice (your first time doesn't count).
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV and dmf, loosy sam. loosy sam said: Alito Mouthing Off http://bit.ly/91Etvm [...]