War of Words Between Court, White House
« Previous |
Main
March 09, 2010 9:06 PM
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Tuesday criticized President Obama for rebuking the high court’s decision striking down some campaign finance reform laws at the State of the Union in January.
Speaking to law students at the University of Alabama, Roberts said he had “no problems” with criticism in general.
“On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum,” said the Chief Justice. “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 the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”
Asked for comment, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said, “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 continued, saying, “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.”
That evening, with some of the Justices sitting before him, the president criticized the court’s ruling allowing corporations and unions to spend money advocating for or against the election of candidates.
“With all due deference to the separation of powers the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections,” the president said.
At the time, Justice Samuel Alito could be seen shaking his head and saying “that’s not true.”
Afterwards, a noted Supreme Court historian who “enthusiastically” voted for President Obama in November 2008 told ABC News that the president’s criticism in that setting was “really unusual” and said he wouldn’t be surprised if no Supreme Court Justices attend the speech next year.
“It was really unusual in my mind to see the president going after the Supreme Court in such a forum,” said author and Law Professor Lucas Powe, the Anne Green Regents Chair in Law, and a Professor of Government at the University of Texas-Austin School of Law. “I’m willing to bet a lot of money there will be no Supreme Court justice at the next State of the Union speech.”
Added Professor Powe, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice William Douglas, “you don’t go to be insulted. I can’t see the Justices wanting to be there and be insulted by the president.” His opinion has nothing to do with animus towards the President, for whom Powe said he voted enthusiastically.
The way the president deviated from the prepared text indicated he may have tried to soften his remarks as he made them. He added “with all due deference to separation of powers” and replaced his desire that Democrats and Republicans “pass a bill that helps to right this wrong” with one for lawmakers to “pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”
-jpt
March 9, 2010
in supreme court
| Permalink
| Share
| User Comments (69)
User Comments
Obama is a lawyer, he will continue his struggle to circumvent the constitution.
Posted by: Jack Atherton | Mar 9, 2010 11:35:38 PM
Im sorry but I have a problem beliving that the founding fathers wanted the courts to allow corperations to buy our elected officals or to allow corperations from other countries to buy our elected officals and allow them to influence our voting system.
Posted by: Mike | Mar 9, 2010 11:46:38 PM
reaganfan, glad to have a Constitutional scholar here to clarify matters we face.
I do wonder in just which clause the Constitution forbids government health care? (Answer: it doesn’t.) But if you insist it’s uncontitutional, fine — let’s shut down Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the VA, all government-funded — and three of them PUBLIC HEALTH CARE.
All you folks hollering “unconstitutional” make me want to laugh — that’s as downright ridiculous as were *I* to holler, “I KNOW MY RIGHTS — the Constitution GUARANTEES ME public health care!”
No it doesn’t. It’s utterly silent on the point.
For that matter, it’s silent on, say, oh — space shuttles. So I guess to publicly fund space shuttles is unconstitutional too, at least if you don’t *like* space shuttles.
Posted by: Mekhong Kurt | Mar 9, 2010 11:44:09 PM
We lost that country the day Obama was elected.–What choice did we have. John McCain wanted to run Joe Liberman on his ticket until the conservative backlash. He then chose a woman with the intellect of George Bush with female anatomy. My point is that Al Gore had Joe Liberman on his ticket. There is no difference between the Republican and democrats. This little maneuver proves it. We lost the country way before Obama got here.
Posted by: Roy West | Mar 9, 2010 11:44:05 PM
I like that one, Jack — Obama subverts the Constitution because he is a lawyer. And the 9 justices? What are they?
Posted by: paul | Mar 9, 2010 11:41:11 PM
BO…If you don’t do as I want you to do…I’ll have my thugs fix it. Pelosi, and Reid will do my bidding…..I won, remember
Posted by: bo | Mar 9, 2010 11:40:40 PM
Our Supreme court is a joke!. Scalia is mentally unstable. Roberts should be working in a drive in theater taking food orders. Sam Alito embodies the deer in the head lights look. He still can not believe that he is sitting on the supreme court. Yes, Mr. Alito the dufus hired you because he herd that you prayed before and after every court session. Wow! Not only do we have sell out politicians but we have nuts like you with the intellect of a rudebaker deciding keep decisions who outcome controls the destiny of the country. God help us!
Posted by: Roy West | Mar 9, 2010 11:40:17 PM
Obama’s style of strong arm presidency does not sit well with the Supreme Court. Obama has the third world leadership mentality. Remember, He got a book written by Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and it gave him the insight on how to control of the government.
Hugo Chavez (the little Mussolini) attack Venezuela’s court system through intimidation and coercion. In a socialist system, the court is nothing more than a window dressing.
Posted by: graymatter | Mar 9, 2010 11:38:56 PM
reaganfan: I am bothered by the ignorance of too many of our citizens. Separation of powers means they each act separately to keep one branch from overpowering the others. As pointed out in another post, the justices have the obligation to support and defend the constitution. The executive branch has every right to work with Congress to pass legislation to balance a decision that the chief executive believes is wrong.
That, I believe, is what separation of powers is all about.
Posted by: SusanB | Mar 9, 2010 11:37:37 PM
Obama is a lawyer, he will continue his struggle to circumvent the constitution.
Posted by: Jack Atherton | Mar 9, 2010 11:35:38 PM
Should a “soulless” corporation have the same 5th amendment (or any other) rights that you do? We have (according to our constitution) God given rights. Being human (a son of God) gives us these rights. A corporation has no such claim. It is a document in a file at an attorney’s office. If you don’t believe in God, you can still reason that a human being’s rights should trump a corporation’s. The corporation is an industrial innovation; it’s not alive. Humans, on the other hand, are living creatures with complex feelings, emotions, and passions. We should be re-thinking our stand on who and what has rights.
Posted by: Human | Mar 9, 2010 11:31:43 PM
hopesprings52:
Roberts and Alito were not on the
2000 Supreme Court!
Of Course we know that Sotomayer and
Ginsberg don’t have a Liberal Agenda!
If you believe that I have a Bridge to
sell you in Brooklyn! Get real.
Posted by: reaganfan | Mar 9, 2010 11:29:21 PM
President Obama was correct in making this criticism of the Supreme Court. He is not the first to criticze a court decision and certainly will not be the last. Even the most dispassionate person can see the potentially devastating impact of this abhorrent decision. The Chief and his right-wing colleagues opened a Pandora’s Box that McCain-Feingold had done a good job of closing. Bllions of dollars have been spent on the last several election cycles and that number will increase as a result of the Court’s decision. As with all branches of government, the court should be praised for prescient decisions and criticized for the clunkers such as the one discussed here. The Justices have the right to choose against participation in the State of the Union address without criticism, should they choose that option. On the other hand, they must be prepared to accept appropriate criticism–such as that delivered by the President. Roberts and his colleagues must recognize that times have changed from the Bush presidency. Some, including me, would say that this decision is part of Republican attempts to ensure that this change is for only four years. Time will tell…
Posted by: J. Bee | Mar 9, 2010 11:29:09 PM
The Obama haters will argue against ANYTHING…. The devil could rise up and b*tch slap Sarah Palin across the country and Obama would come to her rescue and you’d criticize him….. GEEZE….. have the integrity to back him up on this one folks…. He’s your president….. please!!! No, really… he might cut you.
Posted by: Stacy | Mar 9, 2010 11:26:35 PM
The 2000 Bush v. Gore 5-4 decision showed that the Supreme Court is now just as partisan and gridlocked as Congress. Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito are blatantly advancing a partisan, far right agenda every chance they get. To suggest they are above the political fray is naive. One of the reasons our country is so gridlocked is because even the Supreme Court has become so highly politicized, ideological and partisan. It’s really quite terrible. If Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito wanted to make new laws they should have run for Congress, not feigned the neutrality of judges.
Posted by: hopesprings52 | Mar 9, 2010 11:22:41 PM
The President seems to have a problem
adhering to the Constitution.
Separation of Powers is not the only
instance of his disregard of the
Constitution.
The Senate Healthcare Bill which the
President supports violates the
Constitution.
The mandate that every citizen purchase
healthcare is Unconstitutional and
ironically will be struck down by the
Supreme Court!
Posted by: reaganfan | Mar 9, 2010 11:21:28 PM
I wonder what part of “theree equal parts” of Government Mr. Obama does not understand?
He doesn’t even understand the US Government, yet he wants it to take over abosuletly every aspect of our lives…
Posted by: Quo Warranto | Mar 9, 2010 11:21:02 PM
It’s not troubling: that’s the way the government is supposed to work. Seperation of powers. The supreme court is duty bound to protect, preserve and defend the constitution and especially to keep the executive and legislative branches in check.
Posted by: Don | Mar 9, 2010 11:17:54 PM
Don, don’t worry: there is another Bush in the pipeline for you. How would you like that re-run?
Posted by: what667 | Mar 9, 2010 11:17:26 PM
First of all Justice Roberts should be thanking his lucky stars George-I do not have a brain-Bush was president. Any decent president would not have even entertained this phony. He had enough experience to hear traffic ticket court but the supreme court of the United States of America????? Seriously, this man has no business being in the supreme court. This is the same moron that could not remember the oath of office. He is an idiot. He trotted out his fake faux family. An idealistic family until we found out that he basically stole the children and he and his wife never had have sexual relations. The children were gathered up to make it look like they had the idealistic family.
Posted by: Roy West | Mar 9, 2010 11:17:20 PM
I cannot believe some of the comments here bashing Obama. Are you people really in favor of big corps having free reign to influence the electoral college result with cash into congress pockets? Give me a break. This is a travesty of justice, literally. In no way shape or form is deregulating campaign financing in the interest of the average american. Its an out and out attempt to increase the distance between the haves and the have nots. Our current congress is all about increasing the height of the fence. People will revolt. Just watch.
Posted by: Alan | Mar 9, 2010 11:17:01 PM
Post a comment
