White House: Supreme Court Justices Chose to be at State of the Union

By: Brian Montopoli
Topics: In The News

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts address students at the University of Alabama Law School in Tuscaloosa, Ala., March 9, 2010.

(Credit: AP)

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs has again hit back at Chief Justice John Roberts' comments concerning President Obama's criticism of the Supreme Court at his State of the Union address.

Gibbs said Thursday that the president's speech didn't seem like a "pep rally" to him and noted that the Justices were not forced to attend.

On Tuesday, Roberts, at left, told a group of law students that the scene at the State of the Union, where Mr. Obama criticized a Supreme Court decision concerning campaign financing, was "very troubling."

"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," Roberts said. He said the speech had "degenerated to a political pep rally" and added, "I'm not sure why we're there."

(For the record, that's not exactly what happened: While most of the justices were expressionless when Mr. Obama delivered his criticism, Justice Samuel Alito shook his head and mouthed the words "not true.")

Asked about Roberts' comments Thursday, Gibbs said, "It didn't seem like a pep rally to me."

"I don't know why they'd feel uncomfortable, they made the decision" to be at the speech, Gibbs said of the justices. "Look, the president disagreed, and polls show 80 percent of the country disagrees with that decision. The president would have said that in that room had they been sitting in that row or not been there at all."

On Tuesday, Gibbs also addressed Roberts' comments.

"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 in a statement. "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."

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

Brian Montopoli
Brian Montopoli is the senior political reporter at CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

17 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 17 Comments


by jgg000101 March 11, 2010 9:36 PM EST: somehow this strikes me as the political equivalency of peeing on superman's cape. Seriously, who would pick a fight with the supreme court? But then again I thought picking a fight with the CIA wasn't a good idea either. Well, actually I didn't think picking a fight with the Boston police was a stroke of genius.; Reply to this comment


by jgg000101 March 11, 2010 9:30 PM EST: Aren't supreme court justices invited to the SOTU?. Certainly anyone can criticize an SC decision. But obama's criticism of this ruling has been described as "exaggerating the truth", "barely the truth", and flat-out "not true". You do not invite people and reprimand them with exaggerated accusations. Especially if it's the Supreme Court.; Reply to this comment


by RobAla March 11, 2010 7:18 PM EST: And the President chose to treat people, who are much more learned than he could think about being, as garbage. I think the Court should refrain from granting him the honor of their presence; as he has treated them dishonorably. Besides that, he bold faced lied the public in his SOTU address about their decision.; Reply to this comment


by velma179 March 11, 2010 6:53 PM EST: y yonayo March 11, 2010 5:00 PM EST
I think it's hilarious that the premise of the Supreme Court's decision to allow unlimited corporate campaign contributions was that of "free speech", then Roberts and Alito get bent out of shape over something our President said.

Free speech, little men ... free speech.

_____________

Excellent comment.

_________

By the way, the President was only carrying out his duties per the US Constitution -- Article II, Section 3.

This is where the State of the Union gathering is described. Look it up. You will see President Obama was not acting in any way outside of the decorum and obligation of the office of POTUS.

Justice Roberts, on the other hand -- could have politely avoided answering the question he was asked. Yes, he also has free speech rights as an American, but as a Justice within the appointed and confirmed branch of government, he really should have held himself back from criticizing members of the two ELECTED (thus, representing "we the people") branches.

The error in decorum or appropriate behavior was perpetrated by Justice Roberts, not President Obama, nor members of Congress.; Reply to this comment


by jt92202 March 11, 2010 6:14 PM EST: Now it's a P.issing match!! I agree that corps and special intrests should not be able to funnel money to elections NOR should Unions (SEIU). The only ones that should be able to give to elections should be the people of the US! Better yet if you want to be elected into office use your OWN damn money!

If the ruling from the court was as they said it was "Unconstitutional" then it should have been removed. Now go out and write a new bill that isn't "Unconstitutional" and get it approved! If the ruling from the court was political then they all should be fired and new ones should be put in, but not by the admistration by a vote of the people!!! Reason why? Because nobody on the hill can be trusted!; Reply to this comment


by 6591Hou March 11, 2010 5:50 PM EST: It wouldn't hurt the judges to be exposed to the people and find out that we don't like their legislation from the bench, we don't like eminent domain taking priority over private property, and we don't like individual rights being sacrificed to expanded government power.

On the other hand if the USSC declares something unconstitutional (because of how it's written)- it's up to the legislators to pass the laws that make something constitutional, not just throw up their hands and give up and blame the USSC.; Reply to this comment


by rbi149 March 11, 2010 5:43 PM EST: Dear 'One American',
Thank God that's ALL you are. You represent no one but yourself...and the right wing bloviators who provided every idea in your little head. How about mixing in a FACT every once in a while to back up your moronic opinions? We're waiting.; Reply to this comment


by rbi149 March 11, 2010 5:38 PM EST: One_American wrote
"Barack Obama is a disgrace to our country, our founding fathers, and our Constitution. GET RID OF HIM."

What are you going to do- shoot him? It was OK for you morons to sit back and do nothing while Bush ignored our Constitutionally guaranteed rights of Habeas Corpus, protection from unlawful search and seizure and meddled in the judicial process by firing U.S. Attorneys he had appointed HIMSELF.
I'll tell you what, MENSA- how about giving ONE EXAMPLE of unconstitutional behavior by President Obama. We're waiting.; Reply to this comment


by thebob-bob March 11, 2010 5:32 PM EST: "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,"

Except no such thing occurred. Go look at the youtube of the event. No one surrounded the SC. There was no hollering, no cheering, just polite clapping. You'd think an angry mob was threatening them.

The choirboy sure got his knickers in a knot about nothing.; Reply to this comment

by rbi149 March 11, 2010 5:30 PM EST

March 11, 2010 5:18 PM EST wrote
"This is not sour grapes! The Supreme Court interprets the law as the law is written." Comments like this expose how ignorant you right-wingnuts really are. The SC decision granting corporations the same rights as individuals goes against 40 years of legal precedence. Who do corporations represent? Their stockholders or their Board members and CEO's. The stockholders OWN THE COMPANY and there are a lot more of them.

Reply to this comment