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.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.