The Delicate Flowers Of SCOTUS
Someone’s had their widdle feelings hurt:
Speaking to law students at the University of Alabama, Roberts said he had “no problems” with criticism in general.
“On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum,” said the Chief Justice. “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.”
…
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs responded later Tuesday, “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.”
You know the best way to avoid criticism? Dpn’t make unpopular decisions to allow a deluge of corporate cash in elections. Obama knows that criticizing a decision that has 80% disapproval among Americans (65% strongly) is good policy and good politics.
[Ed. note – updated to include link to original story. Obviously, this was an oversight on my part.]
Tags: President Obama, SCOTUS
LOL, yeah the Supreme Court should be above reproach. I’m sure Justice Thomas is in complete agreement with Roberts since Thomas will be hearing a case about Monsanto even though he worked for them for years.
“You know the best way to avoid criticism? Dpn’t make unpopular decisions to allow a deluge of corporate cash in elections.”
As opposed to say…union cash?
“LOL, yeah the Supreme Court should be above reproach..”
If you read the entire quote, Nemnuts, which UI conveniently left out, you would see that Roberts has NO problem being criticized. In fact, he welcomes it. He just thought the manner and the setting were inappropriate.
It was angry, little Barry who didn’t get his way having a little fit at a political rally. Roberts is right to be bothered by being called out in such a setting.
The funniest thing is you fools thought Alito was out of line for even mouthing something in response to his holiness’ tirade. Think about how hypocritical that is for a second. Roberts has no problem be questioned about his decision, he just didn’t like the setting, so he is baby. Alito mouthed something in response to little Barry’s diatribe and he was out of line?
Seriously, you guys need to find another infallible deity because this one just ain’t working for ya!
As a wise man once said on this very blog, you are all a bunch of “sheep” and he couldn’t have been more correct.
“It is when we begin lying to ourselves that all hope for our humanity is lost.”
You folks exemplify that quote just about as well as any group I know.
Delicate flowers indeed!
The decision is unpopular because it is incorrect. The Court abused the First Amendment to produce the result it wanted for the wealthy. A fifth-grader can see that money is not free speech.
The Court has insulted our intelligence and our Constitution by appropriating rights of individuals and assigning them to coalitions of the wealthy.
The Court used to stick up for the little guy, which is the spirit of the Bill Of Rights. But now is seen as a tool of the powerful. Thus the unpopularity.
LOL DesTesticleFace
LOL, Desmond. John Roberts has no problem being criticized except he doesn’t want to be criticized.
I think we should run with the money = speech angle. Since money now equals speech, I feel like my free speech rights are being violated because I’m not rich.
I love this. John Roberts gets a lifetime job and one of his duties is to sit at the State of the Union, without reacting, even if he is criticized. Apparently this is just too difficult.
So your suggestion is that, to avoid criticism, the Supreme Court should ignore the Constitution and instead issue rulings according to the results of public opinion polls? Really?
But hey, at least Øbimbo got to stand up there and reaffirm his support for legislation introduced by a stone-cold racist Democrat whose major purpose was keeping corporations from giving their dollars to support candidates supportive of civil rights for blacks!
UI — there is no requirement that the justices attend the State of the Union. Indeed, there is nor requirement for it to be a speech — for much of our nation’s history, it was done in the form of a written report to Congress.
The topic of the ruling had nothing to do with the Constitution. Not a word about corporations being people in there.
Rhenquist encouraged justices when he was cheif justice not to go specifically to avoid issues like this, and to maintain their impartiality (which is the reason some people were surprised by Alito’s mouthed response).
If Roberts was sincerely troubled, I would expect him to now do the same instead of whining to third parties.
Yeah, just that silly little “Congress shall make no law” verbiage there in the First Amendment.
considering that the whole “corporations as people” argument isn’t even precedent (remember the original point was slipped into a SCOTUS opinion by an overzealous law clerk under the assumption that it was the justice’s intention) just solidifies the point that the Citizens United decision is a horribly poor, and disingenuous one.
just look at one point of the decision – equating unions with corporations. This is just simple false equivalency perpetrated by supposedly smart people. I can give you reasons, ad nauseam, on why unions are not similar to corporations, but I don’t want to insult your intelligence.
This only forces me to believe that this was an “agenda” ruling.
please un-moderate me, bedankt
Yeah, not sure why you were moderated VC. I released your comment.