• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • State of Disunion

    President Obama has received criticism from yet another Supreme Court justice concerning his inappropriate and unprecedented chastisement of the Court during the State of the Union address.  Obama criticized the Court’s recent campaign finance opinion while six of the justices sat before him, obviously unable to respond to the criticism during the address.

    Tuesday, Chief Justice John Roberts told a group of University of Alabama law students that the State of the Union has “degenerated into a political pep rally” and, like his colleague Justice Thomas did just days after the event, questioned whether justices should attend at all.

    “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.”

    Unsurprisingly, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs responded to Roberts’ remarks with a statement that merely reiterated Obama’s criticism of the Court:

    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. 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.

    But this merely dodges the issue raised by the Chief Justice, which is not whether the decision was correct (it was), or whether the president is free to wrongly criticize it (he is), but whether the time and venue of that criticism were appropriate.  Indeed no one contends that the president overstepped his bounds by the mere act of speaking out against the decision.  Chief Justice Roberts agrees that anyone is free to criticize the Court, and contends that certain people even have an obligation to do so.  But “the setting, the circumstances, and the decorum” have to be taken into consideration.

    Perhaps Obama should have stuck to a press statement in the first place.

    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to State of Disunion

    1. John Burciaga, Newbu says:

      Chief Justice Roberts is creating a divisive issue and adding fuel to the resulting fire. Justices don't want to be at the State of the Union, how sad. Permit their absence if they and Roberts will refrain from public comments regarding this president. Am sure they would not have done so with the previous Chief Executive.

    2. John B. San Diego says:

      Obama should have never made reference to the Supreme Court during the State of the Union Speech, except possible mention to welcome Justice Sotomayor!

      No President would verbally diminish the honor of his Joint Chiefs in the State of the Union, why diminish honor of the Supreme Court?

      Has any President used the SOU speech to chastise anyone? I will research that factoid myself.

      Past State of the Union speeches have been opportunities to heal and seek unification of our nation as a whole.

      VERY Amateurish of Obama in my opinion to take and squander an event so closely observed and he reduces it to the lowest common denominator.

      A "True American Statesman" would never have considered incendiary remarks to be included in the speech. SO much for Statesmanship correct?

      As far as Chief Justice Roberts is concerned; well Barrack Obama and John Roberts are alumni of Harvard University. And I have no business in their league.

      I'll make one brief comment to Mr. Chief Justice Roberts, please restrain yourself Sir, it is considered unethical to enter into a battle of wits against a unarmed man

      That is of course with all due respect to Commander in Chief and Chief Justice.

    3. Russ, Charlottesvill says:

      The SC justices have no obligation or duty to attend the SOTU. Interesting response that this president, who seems to be in our face every day, needs a "refrain from public comments".

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.