White House Vs. Supreme Court: It's Getting Ridiculous

[MyOwnDrum]

Obama really put his foot in it by publicly scolding the Supreme Court during his State of the Union Address. He's getting a lot of flack for breaking from tradition and decorum. Chief Justice Roberts was able to to retort the other day, in a more appropriate setting. I have so much respect for Justice Roberts.

White House Vs. Supreme Court: It's Getting Ridiculous - Crossroads - CBS News

For the life of me, I just don't get why the White House continues to try to pick a fight with the Supreme Court. I've suggested before that perhaps it's a sign President Obama intends to tap an outsider when John Paul Stevens retires, so he can beat the drum that the Court is out of touch with everyday Americans.

But after Chief Justice John Roberts made some entirely reasonable remarks yesterday -- and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs just had to respond -- it's now getting ridiculous.

Whether the White House has a short-term or long-term strategy or no strategy at all, it's flat-out absurd and ill-advised for the administration to think it should always have the last word. It's like my 6-year-old: "I don't LIKE your idea. I like MY idea."

It wasn't enough that Mr. Obama, for the first time in modern history, took a direct shot at the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address, when he slammed the justices for their recent campaign finance reform decision. Six of them looked on -- including the author of the opinion, key swing vote Anthony Kennedy -- while Democrats jumped up to whoop and holler.

All that, of course, was too much for Justice Samuel Alito, who shook his head and silently mouthed, "not true."

The next day, the White House just couldn't let it rest. It again had to have the last word. It put out a "fact sheet," trying to prove it was Mr. Obama -- not Justice Alito -- who was right.

Now the Chief Justice, speaking yesterday at the University of Alabama Law School, has weighed in. Responding to a question from a clearly insightful Alabama law student, Roberts said he thought the whole scene was "very troubling."

"To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we're there," Roberts said.

 

[jujuman13]

I am somewhat surprised that your comment is the only one I have seen posted regarding this incident.
However I commend you for raising it.

 

[American]

I suggest Obama not try to spar over court decisions with any Supreme Court justice; he will get his ass handed to him.

 

[Caedon]

Let's see.

On the one hand, we have Obama:

• indubitably intelligent
• got a JD from Harvard Law School
• practiced law for roughly 9-10 years at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland.
• no longer practices or focuses on legal issues on a daily basis

Then we have the Supreme Court:

• 9 indubitably intelligent people
• All recognized as current experts in the field of Constitutional law, if not recognized as such prior to their ascension to the SCOTUS
• Their sole focus, some for decades, is on analyzing constitutional issues

So we have 9 experts who constantly focus on the issue at hand versus one guy that used to be a lawyer. I think I'm going with the 9 on this one.

 

[misterman]

Obama really put his foot in it by publicly scolding the Supreme Court during his State of the Union Address. He's getting a lot of flack for breaking from tradition and decorum.

But it wasn't a break from tradition or decorum. Presidents have criticized court decisions in SOTU addresses before.

 

[misterman]

Let's see.

On the one hand, we have Obama:

• indubitably intelligent
• got a JD from Harvard Law School
• practiced law for roughly 9-10 years at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland.
• no longer practices or focuses on legal issues on a daily basis

Then we have the Supreme Court:

• 9 indubitably intelligent people
• All recognized as current experts in the field of Constitutional law, if not recognized as such prior to their ascension to the SCOTUS
• Their sole focus, some for decades, is on analyzing constitutional issues

So we have 9 experts who constantly focus on the issue at hand versus one guy that used to be a lawyer. I think I'm going with the 9 on this one.

But it was a 5-4 decision. :mrgreen:

 

[LaMidRighter]

I'll say this, as intelligent as the POTUS supposedly is, it is really stupid to attack the highest court in the land on national tv when your key issue, health "reform" is already facing SCOTUS constitutional challenges the minute ink hits paper.

 

[metreon]

If I recall, Roberts raised a complaint about decorum, not law. His objection furthermore fails to acknowledge his own fault in the matter: there is no requirement for the Court to attend the SotU. His First Amendmend rights were not altered in any way, as evidenced by his vocal response. He placed himself in that position and was not coerced to do so. So in my opinion, given that Congress itself has a long spotted history of non-decorous rancor and the Presidency probably lost it with Nixon, and given that he was not forced to be there, Robert's "complaint" verges on the delusional.

 

[OrlandoGringo]

But it wasn't a break from tradition or decorum. Presidents have criticized court decisions in SOTU addresses before.

What did Obama gain by making those remarks in the SOTU? Do you think Obama privately regrets making them during the SOTU?

 

[OrlandoGringo]

Robert's "complaint" verges on the delusional.

Can you be more dramatic?

 

[misterman]

What did Obama gain by making those remarks in the SOTU? Do you think Obama privately regrets making them during the SOTU?

I think his gain was political (I totally disagreed with them BTW).

I was just responding to the false assertion that they were unprecedented.

 

[OrlandoGringo]

I happen to think Obama came out looking bad with that whole affair. I don't really get what he thought would be gained by making those remarks in that venue. Obama was touted as an intelligent man who was good at unifying opposing forces and gaining a consensus. I haven't seen that. He hasn't been able to do that with his own party. He's failing with Iran, which may prove to be the most critical foreign policy issue of his presidency. He's turned off the middle-class of the country, who put him in office, with his health care "reform". My point is Obama was supposed to be politically astute. Bashing the justices in that venue was, politically, self-defeating. My guess is that Obama privately would like to be able to take a mulligan on that one.

 

[misterman]

I happen to think Obama came out looking bad with that whole affair. I don't really get what he thought would be gained by making those remarks in that venue. Obama was touted as an intelligent man who was good at unifying opposing forces and gaining a consensus. I haven't seen that. He hasn't been able to do that with his own party. He's failing with Iran, which may prove to be the most critical foreign policy issue of his presidency. He's turned off the middle-class of the country, who put him in office, with his health care "reform". My point is Obama was supposed to be politically astute. Bashing the justices in that venue was, politically, self-defeating. My guess is that Obama privately would like to be able to take a mulligan on that one.

Why was it self-defeating?

 

[cpwill]

But it was a 5-4 decision. :mrgreen:

yes, but none of the dissents tried the laughably false claim that Obama did during the SOTU.

 

[cpwill]

Why was it self-defeating?

he wanted to build public support for a legislative limitation of the courts' decision. instead he came off looking like a bit of a demagogic bully; and instead of letting the story be about how the court's ruling would effect elections (which would have helped him) he turned it into whether he or Justice Alito was correct (which does not) and whether it was proper decorum for him to treat the SCOTUS so (which doubly does not).

 

[OrlandoGringo]

Why was it self-defeating?

Because he came off like a jerk.

 

[Chappy]

… Chief Justice Roberts was able to to retort the other day …

“The [Chief Justice of the United States]? How many divisions has he got?”

Sorry, I lurched into my Joseph Stalin persona there.

 

[misterman]

yes, but none of the dissents tried the laughably false claim that Obama did during the SOTU.

This is true.

 

[misterman]

Because he came off like a jerk.

Only to those who already don't support him. I think it strengthened his appeal to the anti-corporation, anti-political corruption types. Even though what he said was a crock.

 

[OrlandoGringo]

Only to those who already don't support him.

It was moderate America, not the left, that put Obama into office. The moderates view Obama more critically than the left just as they viewed Bush more critically than the right. You may not be aware but Obama is turning off the moderates in droves with his agenda. Remarks like the ones he made at the SOTU does NOTHING for him or his cause and just turns off the people that put him there.

 

[misterman]

It was moderate America, not the left, that put Obama into office.

It's always moderate America who puts someone in office, with the help of their left or right wing, depending on the situation.

The moderates view Obama more critically than the left just as they viewed Bush more critically than the right. You may not be aware but Obama is turning off the moderates in droves with his agenda. Remarks like the ones he made at the SOTU does NOTHING for him or his cause and just turns off the people that put him there.

I think this particular issue appeals to lefties, but also to many moderates and a fair number of righties.

 

[MyOwnDrum]

It was moderate America, not the left, that put Obama into office. The moderates view Obama more critically than the left just as they viewed Bush more critically than the right. You may not be aware but Obama is turning off the moderates in droves with his agenda. Remarks like the ones he made at the SOTU does NOTHING for him or his cause and just turns off the people that put him there.

Well said, ITA