J. Roberts: State of the Union "Troubling"
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Obama's State of the Union address was "very troubling" and the annual speech has "degenerated to a political pep rally."
Obama chided the court, with the justices seated before him in their black robes, for its decision on a campaign finance case.
Responding to a University of Alabama law student's question, Roberts said anyone was free to criticize the court, and some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.
"So I have no problems with that," he 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."
The White House fired back at Roberts' comments Tuesday evening.
"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," spokesman Robert 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."
Obama broke with tradition in the State of the Union by criticizing the court decision allowing corporations and unions to freely spend money to run political ads for or against specific 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," Obama said in January.
Justice Samuel Alito was the only justice to respond at the time, shaking his head and mouthing the words "not true" as Obama continued.
Roberts told the students he wonders whether justices should attend the speeches.
"I'm not sure why we're there," said Roberts, a Republican nominee who joined the court in 2005.
Justice Antonin Scalia once said he no longer goes to the annual speech because the justices "sit there like bumps on a log" in an otherwise highly partisan atmosphere. Six of the nine justices attended Obama's address.
Roberts opened his appearance in Alabama with a 30-minute lecture on the history of the Supreme Court and became animated as he answered students' questions. He joked about a recent rumor that he was stepping down from the court and said he didn't know he wanted to be a lawyer until he was in law school.
Asked about the Senate's method of confirming new justices, Roberts said senators improperly try to make political points by asking questions they know nominees can't answer because of the limitations of judicial ethic rules.
"I think the process is broken down," said Roberts.
While Associate Justice Clarence Thomas told students at Alabama last fall he saw little value in oral arguments before the court, Roberts disagreed.
"Maybe it's because I participated in it a lot as a lawyer," Roberts said. "I'd hate to think it didn't matter."
© 2010 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Obama chided the court, with the justices seated before him in their black robes, for its decision on a campaign finance case.
Responding to a University of Alabama law student's question, Roberts said anyone was free to criticize the court, and some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.
"So I have no problems with that," he 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."
The White House fired back at Roberts' comments Tuesday evening.
"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," spokesman Robert 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."
Obama broke with tradition in the State of the Union by criticizing the court decision allowing corporations and unions to freely spend money to run political ads for or against specific 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," Obama said in January.
Justice Samuel Alito was the only justice to respond at the time, shaking his head and mouthing the words "not true" as Obama continued.
Roberts told the students he wonders whether justices should attend the speeches.
"I'm not sure why we're there," said Roberts, a Republican nominee who joined the court in 2005.
Justice Antonin Scalia once said he no longer goes to the annual speech because the justices "sit there like bumps on a log" in an otherwise highly partisan atmosphere. Six of the nine justices attended Obama's address.
Roberts opened his appearance in Alabama with a 30-minute lecture on the history of the Supreme Court and became animated as he answered students' questions. He joked about a recent rumor that he was stepping down from the court and said he didn't know he wanted to be a lawyer until he was in law school.
Asked about the Senate's method of confirming new justices, Roberts said senators improperly try to make political points by asking questions they know nominees can't answer because of the limitations of judicial ethic rules.
"I think the process is broken down," said Roberts.
While Associate Justice Clarence Thomas told students at Alabama last fall he saw little value in oral arguments before the court, Roberts disagreed.
"Maybe it's because I participated in it a lot as a lawyer," Roberts said. "I'd hate to think it didn't matter."
Popular in Politics
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 438 Comments
- Major immigration overhaul passes first big test
- Anthony Weiner comeback try begins: Running for NYC mayor
- Top IRS official to invoke 5th Amendment at congressional testimony 148 Comments
- U.S. IDs several men possibly responsible for Benghazi attack
- Va. GOP candidate: Planned Parenthood "more lethal" for blacks than KKK 1219 Comments
- Will tornado relief funding escape politics?
- Poll: Most think IRS targeting was deliberate 185 Comments
by honest_pols March 10, 2010 3:01 PM EST
WILL SOMEONE FAVOR US WITH THE LATEST CONCLUSIVE, AUTHORITATIVE,
"OFFICIAL" LEGAL STATUS OF BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S BIRTHPLACE,
AS PER (ANY OF) HIS LEAST CONTROVERSIAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe the republican politicians could round up another 24 million dollars of taxpayer money and Kenneth Starr and run another circus show that in inclusive to the the frivolous nature of the assertions.
AFTER THE OVAL OFFICE BJ & CIGAR STORY, I DON'T THINK JEN STARR HAS ANYTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.
I THINK THE STRONGER ARGUMENT IS THAT HE APPARENTLY APPLIED TO OCCIDENTAL AS A FOREIGN STUDENT. IF THAT IS TRUE, WHO NEEDS A BIRTH CERTIFICATE, HE COMMITTED FRAUD.
Force all candidates to use Public Funding ONLY and you eliminate the Corp & Union influence.
I work for a private company. They give me pay and benefits. Those arent subsidized by anyone...it is renumeration for my services. Same goes for government employees. Now you can argue are they paid too much...that is fine.
Two months ago, Mortar and his wife owned their own company for "over 30 years".
I called him on it, and he said that he and his wife "owned their own company for only 7 years", and said I was lying when I quoted his "30+ years" comment.
Now he works for a private company.
How sad that he can't even keep the lies about his own life straight.
I have no clue.
Take a look everyone - this is a rare moment!!!
Mortar actually post something truthful!!!
Mark it down on the calendar - you won't see this again anytime soon!!
WILL SOMEONE FAVOR US WITH THE LATEST CONCLUSIVE, AUTHORITATIVE,
"OFFICIAL" LEGAL STATUS OF BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S BIRTHPLACE,
AS PER (ANY OF) HIS LEAST CONTROVERSIAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
New reports and rumors are flying again.
Is there anything that's iron-clad, indubitable, conclusive and official, to put to rest the subject matter of BHO's being born in the U.S., and thereby his eligibility to be president?
Hey everyone - look!!
It's a "birther"!!!!
ROFLMAO!!!!
I thought they all disappeared, but look - a genuine flake!!
Subsidized? I thought that is what we pay them to do the jobs they do??? It is payment for their employment.
I work for a private company. They give me pay and benefits. Those arent subsidized by anyone...
----------------------------
Work?.....YOU sit here day after day and spew political rhetoric and things YOU 'think' are in Our Constitution.
Again, corporate America has no rights given them under Our Constitution, and certainly no rights over WE THE PEOPLE.
Again, WE THE PEOPLE cannot change anything in Our Constitution, since it is our Congress proposing those changes, and they take effect after 2/3 of the state legislatures ratify them.
Again, government employeees like our congresscritters are SUBSIDIZED by the American people in regards to their health care -- costing far less for their FAMILY plans than mine is for an individual as a small business owner.
Your private company subsidizes your health care (not sure why they even give you a job, but maybe it's just to be a paid TROLL, since you spend all your miserable time here stating LIES and DECEPTIONS)
You talk about the Constitution giving or not giving rights. The Constitution does not give rights to anyone. Period. That is not what the document is about.
Next, you say Congress proposes Constitutional amendments and then the States ratify. But that isnt the only way to amend it...so why do you ignore the other way?
Employees are PAID, not subsidized. If you dont like how much they are paid, that is a legitimate argument. But, what they are paid is for their services.
Please put down the Marx books and actually look at the facts.
"OFFICIAL" LEGAL STATUS OF BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S BIRTHPLACE,
AS PER (ANY OF) HIS LEAST CONTROVERSIAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
New reports and rumors are flying again.
Is there anything that's iron-clad, indubitable, conclusive and official, to put to rest the subject matter of BHO's being born in the U.S., and thereby his eligibility to be president?