Tuscaloosa, AL – U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Obama’s first State of the Union address was “very troubling” and that the annual speech to Congress has “degenerated into a political pep rally.”
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
Responding to a University of Alabama law student’s question about the Senate’s method of confirming justices, Roberts said senators improperly try to make political points by asking questions they know nominees can’t answer because of judicial ethics rules.
“I think the process is broken down,” he said.
Obama chided the court for its campaign finance decision during the January address, with six of the court’s nine justices seated before him in their black robes.
Roberts said he wonders whether justices should attend the address.
“To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I’m not sure why we’re there,” said Roberts, a Republican nominee who joined the court in 2005.
Roberts said anyone is free to criticize the court and that 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 used the speech to criticize 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.
Justice Samuel Alito was the only justice to respond at the time, shaking his head and appearing to mouth the words “not true” as Obama continued.
In response to Roberts’ remarks Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs focused on the court’s decision and not the chief justice’s point about the time and place for 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,” 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.”
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.
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.
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.”
Strange, the Chief Justice of the independent Supreme Court, criticizing the Commander in Chief .God bless America !
The problem is that the *Citizens United* decision ally *is* as bad as Obama says. It allows foreign governments through US subsidiary corporations to spend unlimited amounts to influence US elections.
Democracy , at its best.
His is right to some extent because the Supreme Court has become a political adjunct of the Republican Party. If the court reasoning is correct and the stockholders give right of reopresentation to the corporation then by the same logic stockholders should be held responsible for the product liability which is caused by said company. E.g. Exxon polluted Alaska bay the stockholders are also responsible.
Whatever he thinks of the event staging, it doesn’t justify Scalia’s behavior in showing his disapproval of the President’s comments of the court decision.
My issue is that Obama’s comments are unrelated to the “State of the Union”. The true purpose of that address is for the Executive Branch of government to provide its Annual Report, consisting of its record of successes and failures, as well as its plans to the Legislative Branch. Such report is needed, and the administration needs to be accountable. The Chief Justice is accurate when he characterizes this event having become a political soapbox where partisan politics is on worldwide television. It is also an opportunity for the President to say the most outrageous things, if he so chooses, while any reaction that indicates disagreement can be heralded as tantamount to treason. At least, that’s what it became during this administration.
Can Obama ever admit he was wrong without blaming it on republicans or Bush? Or is his ego in the way of honesty? Of course, the “State of the Union” address has become a circus.
Maybe, Chief Justice Robert’s behaviour at the swearing -in ceremony wasn’t accidental , after all.
According to Glenn Beck only Republican appointed justices are impartial and correct at how they interpret the law. When Democrats pack the court, it’s always progressive!
Roberts is right about one thing. The State of the Union address has become a political pep rally. However, that has been so since WWII, and really started to go “over the top” in the Reagan years. But Reagan was an actor, and great at using dramatic language to get his message across… must like Obama is today. I don’t really see how that makes the system “broken”.
Perhaps if justice Roberts hadn’t given that communist pig, Hugo Chavez (through Citgo) the right to spend all the money he wants to influence our political process, perhaps he wouldn’t have to be deflecting now. When he finally figures out that our courts are ALSO part of the problem, maybe he will be worth listening to. Until then, he is just another Washington bobblehead worried about his own legacy.
This coming from a guy who belongs to the “you lie!” party. Republicans never met a double standard they didn’t like.
President Bush appointed legal scholars who are political lackeys and an extension of the Republican agenda
Poor helpless Justice Roberts! Boo-hoo!
Do you people –Republicans and Democrats- not realize that the Supreme Court is not necessarily appointed to decide what is best for this country?
Their job is to implement and interpret the constitution of the United States of America.
When they passed the law allowing companies to freely advertise and campaign for a candidate it was because they could not find anything in the constitution that would not permit it.
It was an absolute disgrace when our President questioned the Supreme Court ruling in a forum where they had no opportunity to answer him. They reviewed the constitution and came up with their ruling, if he did not like it because of his political views then he should have addressed it somewhere else.