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

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

/ AP

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.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

He didn't slam Mr. Obama for singling out the Court, as some have done. He said people have a right to criticize the Court if they disagree with a decision.

"I have no problems with that," Roberts said. "On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum. 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."

And he's right. The justices have to sit there with their hands in their laps and their faces blank. They can't be seen as taking sides -- they may have to decide some of these issues some day. Justice Scalia has said they look like bumps on a log. And that's why some justices won't go to the State of the Union address -- and why none of them probably ever will again after this year's dressing down from the president.

But once again, the White House has to try to get the last word. Last night, Gibbs struck back at Roberts.

"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."

Maybe it's because he's an Auburn guy and the Chief Justice was talking to law students at the University of Alabama (or, as we like to say, "the University"), but Gibbs should have let this go.

This administration is going to have to be dealing with this Supreme Court for at least three more years, if not more. Its lawyers are going to have to appear before these justices to defend presidential initiatives or federal laws in case after case, big and small.

I'm not suggesting they won't get a fair shake simply because the White House is trying to stick it to the conservative justices. George Bush repeatedly got slapped down by this Court, even though he never lashed out at the justices.

But at some point -- and I'd say that point is now -- the Obama Administration is working against its interests.

They'd do well to remember that on a lot of the issues they care about, the Supreme Court gets to decide. No matter how much they stomp their feet and shout, "I don't LIKE your idea; I like MY idea," the Supreme Court is going to get the last word.

[thatstherealnews]

The robert's court is undemocratic unamerican, give priveleges of unlimited spending to MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS (NOT AMERICAN) They have corrupted OUR democracy prostituted real freedom of speech they have no respect or love for what this country really is. Roberts Stevens Scalia Thomas Alito are pimps that have sold our congress to the highest bidder.

[ALBrainTrust10]

WRONG....decision does not cover foreign corporations.

[info-hunter]

It is ridiculous to think that nothing should be said about the corporate leaning politics and give away of our voteing rights. Next we will be told that corporations can run for office as they are viewed as real voteing person. Where do you think the line should be drawn, when the corporate president tells you that the corporations will no longer pay taxes and the tax short fall will be replaced with a huge tax bill with your name on it? Republicans should not hold office untill they remember they work for the U.S. citizens and not the corporations. Supreme Court Injustice Roberts and his cronies will not rest until we all live in the "Conservative State of Corporate America LLC". Big brother is watching!

[gboyd41]

Don't you mean the Dems should not hold office until they remember who they work for?

[ALBrainTrust10]

SO YOU CAN TAX A CORPORATION.

YOU CAN REGULATE A CORPORATION.

AND THE CORPORATION DOES NOT GET TO SPEAK FOR ITSELF?

[thatstherealnews]

Nobody can defend what the Justice john robert's Supreme Court did when they recently decided MONEY = freedom of speech, a citizen of the US entitled to the United States constitution freedom of the press = multinational corporation (Un american)
Nobody can defend not counting all the votes of American citizens in Florida to allow the citizens of this Great Country to decide who will be President (Bush v Gore) and made bush president.

[ALBrainTrust10]

COUNTING ALL THE VOTES? YOU MEAN ALL THOSE DOUBLE VOTES?

IF PEOPLE CAN'T HANDLE A PUNCH OUT BALLOT, THEIR VOTE SHOULD NOT COUNT ANYWAY.

[OldGeezer43]

Why don't we start a new party. One in which the potential candidate will not take any money from special interest groups, agree to term limits on their office, attach no riders and ear marks to legislation, That is committed to the reduction of government on all levels, reduce spending and borrow only when it can be payed back in a reasonable time. Anyone have any other ideas?

[maddog1don]

I totally disagree with the Courts ruling, but the State of the union Address is not the place for the President to make such comments. Two wrongs don't make a right. The State of the Union Address was nothing but another political rally the way it was done.

[rocketjl]

The White House, Obama, already controls Congress. There are 3 independent parts of the government. It appears Obama does not want to play nice, but lay the ground work for a time when he can appoint new judges to the Supreme Court and allow him to control all three branches of the government. It does not matter that it is against the Constitution, Obama is trying to get rid of that also.

[tourist27]

No, this Court is shredding the Constitution, not Obama.

[tourist27]

This Supreme court's decisions are fairly predictable as they are so partisan. Given that, I don't think it makes one iota of difference that the President spoke his mind. He definitely spoke for the vast majority of Americans on this issue. Free speech constitutional rights for corporations indeed. I wonder, do the employees of those corporations also get to spend unlimited funds on advertising for candidates? Sort of like double-dipping. This would be the same court that has no regard for century old precedents, so who gives a damn if they show up for the state of the union? They can go hang out on John Robert's island instead and develop their cult rulings there. Opus Dei and corporations rule! We know state's rights don't. John Roberts and Scalia (with Thomas in complete submission) politicized this court, not Obama. So, it's not like they wanted to consort with him anyways. Let them go back to their bubble, while some of us pray that the court will turn back to law in our lifetime.

[KPeters_from_UK]

I feel it important to repeat Velma's post because it is so apparent that too many Republicans do not understand the Constitution. Read it then you may try to persuade me that Obama was wrong.

by velma179 March 11, 2010 12:50 PM EST


******************

(the posts by anti-Obama)... makes it very clear that many posters here have no idea what the Constitution says regarding the State of the Union address.
I very clearly gave anyone who chose to educate themselves, the Article and Section that applies to the SOTU address.

When you read it (and I will now include a copy and paste from our founding document in order to assist those of you too lazy or intellectually challenged to look it up yourself) -- you will see that ALL the presidents who have mentioned SCOTUS rulings, including President Obama in 2010 had the right and the responsibility to mention these decisions ...when they were instructing Congress on "measures he deems expedient and necessary". When those measures arise from what the POTUS deems as a flawed SCOTUS decision, he has the right and the responsibility to address Congress with his concern.

President Obama was acting within a Constitutional mandate. Period. Read it yourself.


Article II US Constitution (The Executive Branch/POTUS)

Section. 3. (please note the statement within the *** -- my emphasis)

***He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;*** he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

[maistir]

The problem is that the President gave no information and proposed no measure to work within the framework of the Citizens United decision. He, like Reagan on school prayer -- and Reagan was the dumbest President ever IMHO -- saw a chance to bash the court over an unpopular decision for his own political advantage. Eisenhower was in a similar position b/c he disagreed with the decision in Brown v. Board of Ed., but he acknowleged the Supreme Court's power of judicial review and worked within the law. That is a better model for future Presidents.

Also, Pres. Obama did not offer one shred of evidence that an additional flood of corporate money would be spent on ads such as 'Ford Motor Co. endorses Sarah Palin for President'. Justice Alito's murmur "not true" hasn't been proved wrong yet. Corporations will still prefer to work behind the scenes through lobbying and they will hedge their bets by giving to all major party candidates.

[dronemonk]

Justice Roberts thinks that the Supremes ought to be immune from any criticism?

What an elitist...

[patocc123]

Apparently you didn't read the article or just skimmed and scanned it for key words.

[KPeters_from_UK]

I watched Dylan Ratigan on NBC and interestingly he mentioned Article II Section III which says:
"He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper;..."

This allows the President to disagree with the Court's conclusions and the President may call for congressional remedies to those conclusions.

WOW. It's in the Constitution. So what's wrong? Is it because the Republicans (and we know that Roberts is a Republican) didn't like what a Democrat President had said? Talk about whinning!!!

Interestingly too, that Republican complain that Democrats whined when Fred Thompson "joked" that Reid would beat his wife when Reid loses his seat.

As for prep rallies...Come on every State of the Union is a prep rally. I challenge any Republican to find one State of the UNion by R. Reagan that was not a prep rally.

[patocc123]

You know when you post a comment and is one sided that it shows biase and normally overlooked.

Try taking a stance against both parties and or continue to be one of the blind to either side. Both sides do the same as the other side.