Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Roberts: Scene at State of Union `very troubling'
Associated Press ^ | March 9, 2010 | Jay Reeves

Posted on 03/09/2010 3:06:36 PM PST by reaganaut1

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."

Breaking from tradition, Obama criticized the court's decision that allows 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: bhoscotus; bhosotu; deathoftherepublic; deathofthewest; endoftherepublic; endofthewest; johnroberts; obama; roberts; robertscourt; sotu2010
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last
The chief justice is politely telling Obama to shove it. I'll say it less politely.
1 posted on 03/09/2010 3:06:36 PM PST by reaganaut1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

They should just have a “more pressing engagement” next time.

And make it known they had a “more pressing engagement.”


2 posted on 03/09/2010 3:09:04 PM PST by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

We need to neuter the pos in November.


3 posted on 03/09/2010 3:09:44 PM PST by omega4179 (0 bellowing about insurance companies sounded like Hitler talking about Jews.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

I like John Roberts. He did a great job of putting the little pissant in his place without appearing disrespectful. That scene at the SOTU was like watching wolves surround a group of lambs.


4 posted on 03/09/2010 3:09:58 PM PST by albie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

No brownie points for Obama in the Roberts court.


5 posted on 03/09/2010 3:10:05 PM PST by Jedidah (Character, courage, common sense are more important than issues.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Roberts seems like a decent man. I wish SCOTUS would take one of the BC cases.


6 posted on 03/09/2010 3:10:41 PM PST by Frantzie (TV - sending Americans towards Islamic serfdom - Cancel TV service NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

But but but... he is our 1st hithtoric clean articulate Fro Mericun that rarely speaks with a negro dialect. We need to give him more time.
Lesson for the day....... Did you lightly coat your barrels with oil?


7 posted on 03/09/2010 3:12:27 PM PST by Old Texan (If the Dims are dumb enough to poke at a Rattlesnake, they are gonna get bit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca

“And make it known they had a “more pressing engagement.””

My good robes are at the cleaners...

Law Books need dusting...especially those pesky top shelves...

My powdered wigs are not ready yet...

The annual Judges Ball is the same night...


8 posted on 03/09/2010 3:12:32 PM PST by jessduntno (Read the mainstream media. Do the opposite. You can't go wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Roberts and Alito should have led them all out the door right in the middle of the address...


9 posted on 03/09/2010 3:13:10 PM PST by BreezyDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

We were “troubled” that the SCOTUS wasn’t interested in settling the questions regarding Obama’s constitutional eligibility, but you told us to shove it basically. Not feeling much sympathy for ya there Justice.


10 posted on 03/09/2010 3:13:33 PM PST by autumnraine (You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

I think it’d be great of the justices declined the invitation next year. Why sit thru that classless clown’s pathetic sales pitch? He’s little more than a carny at the circus.


11 posted on 03/09/2010 3:15:55 PM PST by EDINVA (Sarchasm (n): The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: albie

In person Roberts is also a crack up. I ain’t sayin’ how I know this though.


12 posted on 03/09/2010 3:18:19 PM PST by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
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."

Persecution is more like it.

Led by the President himself. Disgusting.

13 posted on 03/09/2010 3:18:40 PM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

“the decorum”

The current occupant of the White House has none.


14 posted on 03/09/2010 3:19:51 PM PST by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
I wonder if this statement was planned before or after his Chicago Message
15 posted on 03/09/2010 3:21:08 PM PST by chuck_the_tv_out ( <<< click my name: now featuring Freeper classifieds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; bigheadfred; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; ...
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... "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."
Plenty of spin in that excerpt, check it out. The Demwit cheerleaders of that suppression of the First Amendment are no different than the enemies of the US who cheered 9/11. Thanks reaganaut1.
16 posted on 03/09/2010 3:23:25 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Freedom is Priceless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

The liberal establishment - headed by Obama - are bullies.


17 posted on 03/09/2010 3:23:59 PM PST by GOPJ (http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php?area=dam&lang=eng)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
To put a quote into use as a rebuke with one small modification to it:
"I'm not sure why he's there," said Roberts, a Republican nominee who joined the court in 2005.

Separation of Powers does not mean that any branch may separate itself from the Constitution, Judge Roberts.

Obama, or WHATEVER his real name is, does not meet the 'natural born citizen' requirement and, Judge, you are obligated to act upon that -- given where you are.

18 posted on 03/09/2010 3:24:24 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: omega4179

Agree. He is trying to intimidate the judicial and legislative branches of government with his arrogant lectures.


19 posted on 03/09/2010 3:24:28 PM PST by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: albie
That scene at the SOTU was like watching wolves surround a group of lambs.

They seemed more like sheep-dogs standing guard against a pack of coyotes to me.

20 posted on 03/09/2010 3:24:42 PM PST by Carry_Okie (Grovelnator Schwarzenkaiser, fashionable fascism one charade at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

When Joe Wilson made his famous “You lie!” remark during a previous Obama speech to Congress, the democrats got enraged. Their rationale was that the President is an invited guest of Congress, and that it is rude to invite a guest into your home then insult him. Ok, fine. The Supreme Court justices are invited guests as well of Congress then. If you invite a guest into your home and they take the opportunity to insult the other guest that you have invited into your home, isn’t that just as wrong? I wish more GOP members of Congress would have made this point: “President Obama was a guest of Congress. It is entirely inappropriate for him to use that opportunity as a platform to insult our other guests, the Supreme Court of the United States. Joe Wilson was criticized for insulting President Obama in a previous address to Congress and what the President did tonight was just as offensive. I’m sure Speaker of House Nancy Pelosi will be bringing a vote to the floor of the House to allow us to put on the record our displeasure with the President’s insult of our other guests.”


21 posted on 03/09/2010 3:25:49 PM PST by GLDNGUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN

Great point!


22 posted on 03/09/2010 3:28:11 PM PST by albie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Roberts is right, but it’s nothing new. The SOTU update was probably originally intended to be either entirely in writing or, if oral, very apolitical, not unlike The Queen’s Speech. (The President here is both head of state, like the Queen, and head of government, like the PM. But the Speech is of course by the head of state, hence largely apolitical.)

Over time, SOTU has devolved into just another big political speech. The Justices should politely decline to attend such affairs, just as they should avoid any other nakedly politically contentious speeches.


23 posted on 03/09/2010 3:33:33 PM PST by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
God bless Chief Justice John Roberts. He has class; the poseur and his congressional puppets have none. Justice Roberts has a sense of the "setting, the circumstances and the decorum," the infantile marxists "cheer and holler" like teeny boppers at a Lindsay Lohan concert. Chief Justice Roberts and the court sit there expressionless while the Poseur in chief breaks from tradition and turns the State of the Union speech into a circus that brings the Wellstone Memorial to mind.

Yes, Chief Justice Roberts, when the Dems occupy the WH, just say 'no' to the question of 'whether justices should attend the speeches'.

24 posted on 03/09/2010 3:35:23 PM PST by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BreezyDog
Roberts and Alito should have led them all out the door right in the middle of the address...

That would work for me, too. But I think Roberts is too much of a class act to set precedent in this manner. Imagine what would have happened with the liberal justices during Bush's SOTU speeches.

25 posted on 03/09/2010 3:37:12 PM PST by Fast Moving Angel (We'll remember in November!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

I think it’s just amazing that there don’t seem to be ANY Democrats anywhere instructing Barry & Michelle on proper protocol. It’s so bad, that I occasionally wonder if they are being intentionally sabotaged.


26 posted on 03/09/2010 3:38:12 PM PST by hennie pennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hennie pennie
"It’s so bad, that I occasionally wonder if they are being intentionally sabotaged"



I think they just never planned for 2 terms & they're happy to denigrate the office.
27 posted on 03/09/2010 3:42:03 PM PST by chuck_the_tv_out ( <<< click my name: now featuring Freeper classifieds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

After 0bama made his snarky remark the Justices should have stood up and walked out.


28 posted on 03/09/2010 3:42:24 PM PST by celtic gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

Me 2!


29 posted on 03/09/2010 3:43:05 PM PST by celtic gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

I get upset every time I see the First Woman coming down the stairs of OUR plane.


30 posted on 03/09/2010 3:47:26 PM PST by bergmeid (Gas up the truck and pedal to the metal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

I disagree. I don’t think they planned on one term..they plan on a permanent term...as in dictator in chief Hugo style.


31 posted on 03/09/2010 3:47:53 PM PST by celtic gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bergmeid

Not only that, I get upset seeing the Resident walking around the WH grounds, in the Rose Garden, in the East Room, in the Mural Room..I get upset knowing he and the lot of them are not under the jail.


32 posted on 03/09/2010 3:49:24 PM PST by celtic gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

The justices should have walked out. I said it at the time and still believe it. Watching the halfrican dress them down before congress and the nation, as though they were just b*****s in his harem, was painful.


33 posted on 03/09/2010 3:55:36 PM PST by LibWhacker (America awake!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: celtic gal

Of course permanent term - but they do it through beureaucracy & government programs. It’s going to seem like an eternity to us, but they know they can’t do the Hugo thing in America.


34 posted on 03/09/2010 3:55:43 PM PST by chuck_the_tv_out ( <<< click my name: now featuring Freeper classifieds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

I find no problem with Roberts boycotting the rest of the Obama State of the Union addresses.

His absence can speak for him.


35 posted on 03/09/2010 3:59:04 PM PST by Persevero ("Our culture is far better than a retarded Islamic culture." -Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Supremes: Don’t go for the next three years.


36 posted on 03/09/2010 4:02:24 PM PST by Uncle Miltie (Democrats prioritize Death over Enslavement!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BreezyDog
Roberts and Alito should have led them all out the door right in the middle of the address...

Heh. That would've been priceless.

That said... I wonder why they're there in the first place? As far as I know the Constitution merely requires that the President make such a report to Congress. It could be in writing-- or email for that matter. There's no requirement that it be a speech, and as far as I know there's no requirement that anybody attend, let alone that people outside Congress and the Executive branches really have any point in attending at all.

It would be interesting if he decided that the Judiciary doesn't attend next year. Cite "separation of powers" or something.

37 posted on 03/09/2010 4:02:30 PM PST by Ramius (Personally, I give us... one chance in three. More tea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

38 posted on 03/09/2010 4:04:15 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Come on, Roberts. Don’t hold such high expecatations of barack’s capacity for class. barack is trash.


39 posted on 03/09/2010 4:08:54 PM PST by Vision Thing (He has a white house, and he wants to paint it black.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fast Moving Angel

I believe that Justice Thomas was absent.


40 posted on 03/09/2010 4:10:59 PM PST by Melchior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

Hideous. Can you imagine Laura Bush ever coming down the steps of Air Force One dressed like that?


41 posted on 03/09/2010 4:15:36 PM PST by Inspectorette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

And if he comes down on the opposite side as you, is he still decent?


42 posted on 03/09/2010 4:16:47 PM PST by Mr. Blonde (You ever thought about being weird for a living?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie; reaganaut1; autumnraine

The U.S.Constitution granted Congress the power to remove sitting elected officials from office, not the Judicial Branch.

Congress chose to delegate the power to remove a suspected usurper to the Distric Court of Washington, D.C. There, using Quo Warranto, those with standing can sue the elected official to prove he/she is eligible for that office.

To have standing one must have been harmed by a decision made by an elected official.


43 posted on 03/09/2010 4:18:42 PM PST by SatinDoll (NO Foreign Nationals as our President!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

A picture tells a thousand words.

44 posted on 03/09/2010 4:23:04 PM PST by houeto (Remember in November!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Mau Mau is as Mau Mau does ...


45 posted on 03/09/2010 4:28:10 PM PST by dodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Breaking from tradition...

Breaking American tradition...

and...

keeping tradition with totalitarians.

46 posted on 03/09/2010 4:29:31 PM PST by 1010RD (First Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BreezyDog

Nope, too political. Somebody has to keep American nobility in place.

It won’t happen in Congress and this White House has all the communism of Hilary with none of Bill’s charm.


47 posted on 03/09/2010 4:30:59 PM PST by 1010RD (First Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Starboard

They’re backfiring on him. The President doesn’t have the clout a Chicago Mayor has or the entire state government in his pocket.

Obama’s already a lame duck in his first term. More proof that the Founders did right and American Republicanism can be salvaged.


48 posted on 03/09/2010 4:33:23 PM PST by 1010RD (First Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: houeto

When I first saw that photo it reminded me of a lady alcoholic I once knew. The look and the legs.

Does she drink?


49 posted on 03/09/2010 4:34:25 PM PST by 1010RD (First Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

They certainly don’t need any help denigrating the office. They’re very successful all by themselves. This is how MO thinks a first lady should represent herself to the US and the world. Am I the only one, or does the expression “Attention WalMart shoppers” come to mind when you see this pic? Then you have BO who thinks it’s okay not only to criticise the Supreme Court Justices at the SOTU, but also to pick his nose on national television during the healthcare summit. Disgusting, despicable people with no class whatsoever. Is it November yet?


50 posted on 03/09/2010 4:41:58 PM PST by anniescloset
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson