We Are Troubled, Too, Justice Roberts
Yesterday, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts told a group of students at the University of Alabama Law School that he found it “very troubling” that Pres. Obama chose the State of the Union address, with the nine justices sitting in front of him, to express his displeasure with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United.
The White House, via Robert Gibbs, was unapologetic:
In a statement sent to reporters, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the only troubling thing was the 5-4 ruling by the court, which said that corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money advocating on behalf of candidates in elections. Roberts leads 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.”
Prof. Darren Hutchinson thinks that Justice Roberts doesn’t have much of a case. First of all, Prof. Hutchinson says, Obama had critical words for the legislative branch (the Senate) as well. The judiciary was not being singled out, nor was any particular justice (or senator, for that matter) singled out for criticism. Second, Obama is not the first president to take on the Supreme Court at the State of the Union, nor was he even close to being the most fiery in his criticism.
Prof. Hutchinson also flags Jonathan Turley’s point that Justice Roberts was being selective in complaining about the unfairness of having to listen to Pres. Obama criticize the justices while being required by protocol to remain silent and expressionless:
At the talk at the University of Alabama, Roberts indicated that it was unfair to criticize the Court when justices “according the requirements of protocol – [have] to sit there expressionless.” But, of course, they all did not sit there expressionless, but Roberts does not acknowledge the serious breach of protocol from his colleague who mouthed “not true” and shook his head in disagreement.Roberts lost considerable credibility with the omission. It is hard to claim to defend tradition when you give a pass to a colleague while lashing out at Democrats and the President.
The magnificent Glenn Greenwald takes Justice Roberts to the woodshed and administers the spoiled brat treatment:
What makes Roberts’ petty, self-absorbed grievance all the more striking is that this is what judges do all the time. It’s the essence of the judicial branch. Federal judges are basically absolute tyrants who rule over their courtroom and those in it with virtually no restraints. They can and do scold, criticize, berate, mock, humiliate and threaten anyone who appears before their little fiefdoms — parties, defendants, lawyers, witnesses, audience members — and not merely “decorum,” but the force of law (in the form of contempt citations or other penalties), compels the target to sit silently and not respond. In fact, lawyers can be, and have been, punished just for publicly criticizing a judge.
As is true for any large group of people, the range of behavior varies greatly, from unfailingly polite judges to pathologically thuggish ones, but the core dynamic of the judicial process is that judges wield absolute power and everyone else is essentially captive to their whims. That is why the overriding attribute of those who interact with them is one of extreme, royalty-like deference, both formally (standing when they enter, addressing them as “Your Honor,” having them sit always on an elevated platform, decked in their flowing, magisterial robes) as well as informally (watch any court proceeding and see lawyers petrified of somehow offending the judge). To say that, for many of them, this endless deference affects their expectations and sense of entitlements is to understate the case, as Roberts just proved.
13 Responses to “We Are Troubled, Too, Justice Roberts”
We didn't elect Obama to be another corporate shill, like his predecessor. Unlimited corporate contributions to political campaigns is the most corrupt idea of our generation- since we are bound to find ourselves forever tied to the profit motive as our political muse.
Congress has a duty to sit in judgement over any Justice whose ruling represented foreigners participating in elections. And I mean any one foreigner wether just a lone shareholder who can vote in one of the plaintiff companies or a large group of shareholders of foreign birth, not naturalized.
Congress has a mandate to remove any Justice sitting in bad behavior. And also Congress itself is SPECIFICALLY mandated in the 14th to act vigorously to protect its wording. Including the description of “citizen”. Congress took an oath to uphold the Constitution and upon them it is especially incumbent upon them to do so. It is explicitly outlined in the 14th in fact.
I personally advocate eliminating the supreme court,banning lobbyists,elimnate the filibuster in the senate,and last but certainly not least,enacting laws with a simple majority vote.Then maybe,just maybe we might have a semblance of a real democracy.
It is unfortunate that increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court has acquired such a negative connotation since the 1930's “court packing” scheme. The federal judiciary at the District and Court of Appeals levels has grown by leaps and bounds in recent decades, generating far more cases than a nine justice Supreme Court can attend to. Increasing the size of the Court, if looked at objectively and without the connotations of court packing, would make much sense and would, in the process diminish the current muscle of an ultra-right faction of the Court that appears to be increasingly out of touch with the country as a whole (witness the recent 80% overall – including 76% of R's – disapproval of Citizens United).
We Americans were troubled by Obama's poor conduct during his State of the Union address. A number of people have been childish about the Citizens United ruling. Obama chose to be one of them, appealing to the base motives of others. It was a regettable moment.
Corruption in our federal capital has been fought for over a hundred years. (The task has been made much more difficult by the monstrous overgrowth of the federal government, increasing its power, influence, and attraction for corruption.) Rather than whine about not being able to practice censorship, why not proceed in a more mature and intelligent manner, and direct efforts toward anti-corruption legislation for campaigns and the rest of what happens (regulation, legislation) in our federal capital?
DLS,
Censorship is the act of regulating content. It is not a monetary function.
The balance of your second paragraph is well taken.
“Censorship is the act of regulating content. It is not a monetary function.”
I understand that. (In fact, that's a defect of the current effort to force people to appear in ads and identify themselves. What's next, telling them exactly what to say, what to wear, what else to do?)
DLS,
In response to “What's next, telling them exactly what to say, what to wear, what else to do?”
Well, I'm sure the FCC wll be instructed not to allow “wardrobe malfunctions”, subject to fine, and additionally require at least a five second delay for any live presentation in order to censor out any accidental f-bombs. As for what they are required to say…how about, “I'm blah blah blah, and I approve this message.” Oops, looks we already engage in censorship…never mind.
Tidbits:
“The balance of your second paragraph is well taken.”
Reform has been sought for a long time — and that leads me to make another point. What's been missed with this ruling is any kind of revitalization of the effort to secure publicly funded (and maybe controlled) campaigns for public office.
This effort has normally been undertaken by liberals (not limited to being anti-corporate) and it's a shame that the “movement” couldn't be remade so that conservatives could be recruited and added to it.
A big boost for public financing of campaigns (or other substantial reforms) is being overlooked in all the complaining and lefty-activist obscession with the “corporate personhood” enemy.
DLS,
Re: publicly funded campaigns. Given the Court's ruling, I'm not sure public funding would be the game changer it once might have been. The rationale of the Court would allow unlimited independent expenditures regardless of how the actual campaigns were financed….which politicians of all stripes would, of course, try to use to their advantage outside the confines of campaign finance restrictions.
Don't get me wrong. It's not that I'm a cynic (in the ancient Greek context); it's just that I'm a cynic (in the modern political context).
It's okay — I'm a cynic, too. One of the things I would like to see goes down in flames from cynicism.
I believe we should have changed Social Security from pay-as-you-go to full funding. I believe that's the better way.
http://www.iwu.edu/economics/PPE07/nathan.pdf
But you can see why the suggestion could be killed, if you're healthily cynical. That's 100% pre-funding, i.e., a huge trust fund. It's the existing SS and Medicare trust funds, on steroids. (Like a smaller-sized equivalent of a huge built-up-from-tax-skimming-during-booms ”rainy day” or contingency fund for a government, drawing from it to do stimulus spending during downturns, in an ideal scenario.)
Congress is to funds as bears are to honey. Why would we want to create any more (trust?) funds?
I know Kathy we could just vote on the constitutionality of things. Kinda like the referendum in Cal…… oh wait you prob don't like that idea either. Well some people live to be miserable.
Justice Roberts is wrong on this one.
I don't even believe the corporate campaign contributions to be a 1st Amendment issue.
The Bill of Rights was created for INDIVIDUALS, not entities. Any person can and should have the rights given THEM by the Constitution. Corporations, Unions, and any other group are not covered, or shouldn't be.
This one decision allows for a government of the corporation, for the corporation, and by the corporation.