Fainting Couch For Justice Roberts!
Tweet
Chief Justice John Roberts found it “troubling” that President Obama criticized the Supreme Court decision in the Citizen’s United case.
Oh noes!
It’s as if President Obama thinks that the Court and the Presidency are co-equal branches of government, when everyone knows that the Supreme Court rules above us all.
Right?
Whoops.
(via)
Most of us learn this in elementary school. Will someone please tell the chief justice?
62 Responses to “Fainting Couch For Justice Roberts!”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
No. Actually if anyone besides an Obama stan reads the link, it’s clear that what Chief Roberts found “troubling” that a POTUS using his SOTU speech as a bully pulpit to criticize SCOTUS directly to their faces. Not only was unprecedented, but something we conservatives like to refer to as FACTS show that Barry was clearly in the wrong. But then for the Obama/Biden team it’s been amateur hour in the WH since day one.
Frankly, Alito is lucky it wasn’t me saying it, as I would have followed that up with a 5 minute dissertation on what a truly shitty decision he and his handed down, sprinkling in the words ‘moron’, ‘corrupt’, ‘payola’ and ending with “Dick move, Sammy.”
And even then, that would be going lightly on them, but it was prime time, and children might have been watching.
I love it when “conservatives” bash Obama as an amateur. And it’s always so cute when they
call the President “Barry”. It’s so typically smirky, childish and kinda sad in a dickish way. Let’s
you know the mindset of the speaker—immediately.
After Katrina, 911, two wars and a failed economy was handed to this administration
it seems that the real amateurs held the reigns from 2000-2008 and never ever
tried to go professional.
Anyway, Roberts is a crybaby–like many conservatives are these days.
Are you sure you’re not actually SaveFarris? Because your link says nothing like you claim it does, and that’s his signature move. Don’t be surprised if he sues.
And if Obama’s remarks keeps the the WATB justices like Roberts from going to the SOTU, so much the better. What the hell are they doing there, anyway?
Ditto what Toaster said. Ghost, dude, the post you linked to actually undermines your emphatic statesments that this was “unprecedented” and that Obama was “clearly in the wrong.” The article give wide latitude for interpreting the exchange while leaning slightly to Obama’s favor:
If anything, Alito’s inability to control himself is what thrust him into the political arena, precisely, as the article indicates, where a Supreme Court Justice should never be.
Since Roberts is now on the record about the Presidents remarks, he himself seems to have decided to throw himself into the political arena as well. It isn’t exactly clear, though. It depends on what aspect of it Roberts found troubling.
As the article you linked to stated, Ghost:
It goes on to note that the State of the Union while Constitutionally required, is an extremely political affair. Supreme Court Justices are not Constitutionally required to attend and some, as noted, have chosen not to appear at such a politically charged event.
If Roberts, then, finds it troubling that justices would appear at a political event, risking involvement in political debates, that’s one thing.
If he finds it troubling that the President would engage in politics during the State of Union, he should, as Oliver implies, re-read the fucking Constitution.
Neither the court nor the President are above the other and if Justices choose to appear in person at a political event, they should be able to either restrain themselves from inappropriate reactions that could embroil them in political debate by revealing their positions on potential legislation that may potentially come before the court, or else not show up, as past justices have done.
“I SUPPORT JOHN ROBERTS. THAT KENYAN HAS NO RIGHT TO CRITICIZE JUDGES. JOHN ROBERTS IS GOING TO STOP PLANNED PARENTHOOD FROM RECEIVING STIMULUS FUNDS AND ACORN FROM SETTING UP WHITE SLAVERY RINGS. YOU’RE EITHER WITH THE CORPORATIONS OR YOU’RE WITH THE TERRORISTS”-Matt Drudge
It’s all about Decorum. Ask Ivan Ilyich about decorum.
Y’know, if the sad little Republican “justices” got their feelings hurt by politics they don’t like, they can always skip the SOTU and join Scalia when he goes hunting with Cheney. No face protectors, though.
All five should retire in protest.
This post is shameless even for this blog. Let me include a more complete except of what Roberts said, from the AP:
Well, gosh, Buzz, do you think he’s OK with the President criticizing the minority party during the SOTU? I mean, they’ll be outnumbered by those cheering…. Oh, but they can make disapproving expressions (unlike Sam Alito). That’s really important, I guess.
Here’s a suggestion for sad little Johnny Roberts: if you don’t want people to shun you, don’t be rude, take care of your personal hygiene, and don’t make absurd rulings that threaten our democracy.
I second that, it’s the only gentlemanly thing to do.
Actually, if Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy were gentlemen they would have resigned in shame after Bush v. Gore.
The richest part about it is that Obama didn’t even criticize the court or the reasoning of the decision. He simply pointed out that like many court decisions it left behind a legislative problem that the other two branches needed to get cracking on.
And Donna, all Obama did was criticize the justices. Which sounds radical to thin-skinned conservatives like yourself. BTW, do you have anything constructive to type?
Beyond parody?
Shorter Roberts:
People are free to criticize the court, but only if they’re insignificant nobodies who can be conviently ignored.
Right, because St. Dutch Reagan or George Bush, Jr. never criticized Supreme Court decisions in SOTU speeches. Why don’t you look into that?
It’s the “decorum”. Honestly, he said that. Jeezus.
Shorter Roberts: The president shouldn’t criticize the supreme court, but supreme court justices can criticize the president all they want.
The thin-skinned one is the WATB in black robes.
Sorry, I should have said THIN-SKINNED so Donna will be able to understand me.
Buzz, the full quote makes it worse because clearly Alito did not, in fact, “sit there expressionless.”
He expressed something which people have interpreted as a negative response to the President and revelatory of his position on an issue which could come before the court again at some point.
That’s no one’s fault or responsibility but Alito’s. The only breach of protocol was Alito’s inability to control himself.
The Justices do not have to attend the State of the Union and if they do, they should be prepared to sit down and remain as detached as possible from the politics and political theater going on around them. If they can’t do that, or if they are troubled by politics, they shouldn’t attend. Many justices have respectfully refused to attend in the past.
Roberts is a lying whiner. No different from the lying whiner who brought him to the bench.
I’m with John Cole:
Once again, we see the liberal’s ‘multiple mandibular manipulation’ — “talking out of both sides of their mouth” … They have relied on Judicial decisions for years , when the Executive or the Congress wouldn’t give them what they wanted — the most egregious example being Roe v Wade , which wiped 37 or 38 state laws in one fell swoop. When the S C wiped out capital punishment for several years, you heard not a peep from the Left.
Now , a Chief Justice expresses some discomfort because the Executive rudely (and inaccurately, BTW) criticized the Supreme Court for doing exactly what they are Constitutionally empowered to do, and Oliver and other liberals call the Justice Roberts “uppity” and “thin-skinned.”
Liberals will say anything, so anything to be right.
Frank has invented a new genre, the self-refuting post!
Republicans, from the lowest teabagger through several sitting presidents have bashed the Supreme Court endlessly over Roe v. Wade for decades. Apparently this was all good and proper.
But let the left criticize a Supreme Court decision and, whoa! Nelly, it’s the end of civil discourse! Overweening arrogance! And other epithets as well!
Do I understand? If we challenge laws in the courts, we lose standing to criticize judicial decisions?
On what world does this make sense?
Did Richard Nixon bash the Supreme Court judges sitting right in front of him in a State of the Union Speech for the Roe vs. Wade decision, Rheinhard?
New rule! New rule! No criticizing SCOTUS decisions in the State of the Union!! Oh, and eleventh base is invisible when the ball is in the air!!
I’ll grant that people have a tendency to criticize a case based on whether or not we agree with its political outcome, irrespective of the law involved. Probably largely because that stuff is really hard. But Roberts’ whining here is especially lame, considering his side invented the whiny buzzphrase ‘activist judge.’
So that’s your issue with it? The setting?
But let the left criticize a Supreme Court decision
The Left is free to do all the criticizing the want of anything. That is not the same as the President second guessing the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address.
It would have been slightly more acceptable , if it were a response to reporter’s question. But that is not what happened.
What would you have thought, if during one – or all – of Pres Bush’s State of the Union addresses, he took time out to criticize the Supreme Court for their ruling on Roe v Wade?
What would you have thought, if during one – or all – of Pres Bush’s State of the Union addresses, he took time out to criticize the Supreme Court for their ruling on Roe v Wade?
I would have thought a number of things, but I doubt it would occur to me to think, “He said that in the State of the Union? That’s very, very troubling!”
Oh, the pearl clutching continues!
Maybe if Roberts didn’t fucking lie in his little huff, he wouldn’t be getting so much shit for it.
Conservatives are really playing out the wuss card on this one.
Comedy gold.
To summarize:
1) Liberals are THIN SKINNED!!
2) Liberals are mean!!
3) ACORN!!!!
Speak, Donna! Speak!
Wow, Donna, you sure told me.
Comedy Gold!.
I love Calvinball!
If you touch the oak tree with your right foot you’re entitled to a free base and a field goal attempt. If your field goal is good, then that means that Democrats are all a bunch of socialistic America-hating doody-heads!
Of course it is. And of course they fail to explain what it is about about the context of the comments that is so problematic. Mostly because they are full of shit, and they are just upset that we have a black Democrat in the White House.
Who gives a flying fuck whether Obama criticized the Justices in the SOTU? What the hell does that matter? Answer: It doesn’t.
You’d think that the few remaining intelligent conservatives would realize that Donna is the kind of person that they are in league with, and then question why that is. Why are they in the same boat as someone who is either a complete fucking moron, or has suffered some kind of traumatic brain injury?
You’d think that the few remaining intelligent conservatives…
Wait. What? I don’t understand. Explain please?
I suppose I walked right into that one…
Yes, this is true. We, the left, have officially outsourced our motto writing to a small company in Romania.
English may not be their first language, but their rates are low, they don’t clutter things with punctuation, and they’re really up on their political buzzwords.
That’s the left’s motto? Has the left been drinking?
IN WHAT MOTHERFUCKING DETECTIVE COMICS “ELSEWORLDS” STORYLINE WILL THOSE EVENTS TAKE PLACE??!!
Please tell us so we can reserve our copies!!
Yeah, except Thomas is a house Negro. And house Negroes have no shame whatsoever.
“Nutrootsville”
(click)
“Nutrootsville”
(click)
“Nutrootsville”
(click)
“Nutrootsville”
(click)
You sound like a damn scratched record. STFU.
They lost you, Randy. Kids these days don’t know about vinyl.
Hell, Donna sounds like somebody who’s almost too young to remember CDs!
Alan Colmes said so back when he was doing liberal talking points for America’s Most Trusted News Source. Maybe.
Exactly, I’d be thinking “what an idiot.” But I wouldn’t be thinking “oh dearie me, he might be hurting the feelings of Justice Burger’s immortal shade. How indecorous!”
Where’s Norbizness when you really need him?
“Yeah right, whatever asshole! It’s always cool to see loud mouthed leftists spout their shit on blogs where people AGREE with them and hide under USERNAMES too-LOL. Loud mouthed morons like this remind me of the punks that egg peoples houses in middle of the night and when the people confront them they shit in their panties and run.”
Hey, you don’t have to come to this blog and like it. Alito, Roberts et al made a crappy decision, and I think they should be called on it, constantly. It was poorly thought out trash that will overwhelm the voices of Americans in favor of whatever will benefit some corporation, somewhere. But if you want it posed differently, remember: George Soros may now throw giant sums of money in your district to have anyone he wants elected, and do it under a layer of shell companies and PACs so as to leave no trace. Just like every liberal millionaire in Hollywood, including Michael Moore.
Now, I doubt they will actually do this, but I know these people seem to scare Red America, and they are useful as an example. You think that’s a bad thing? Blame Roberts.
Look, if you think it’s cool for the President to tear into the court at the SOTU, and maybe also that politics should always be a no holds barred free for all, that’s your choice. My point was simply that the original post grossly misrepresented what Roberts said.
Donna, you ignorant virgin, President Harding criticized a SCOTUS ruling in his 1922 SOTU, and Saint Ronald of Dutch was constantly criticizing Roe v Wade, he was just canny enough not to have any photo opportunities with any anti-abortion groups or opponents “for the record”.
Anyhoo, there is no Constitutional requirement that the SOTU be given as a speech before both Houses of Congress, the SCOTUS, etc. If our Dark Lord of Hawai’i had faxed his speech to the 535 members of Congress he would’ve broken with the relatively recent tradition but wouldn’t have done anything unconstitutional per se.
It’s risible how you’re driven to make shit up because relating the bare facts of the case doesn’t help your side one bit.
That’s known as the “post-2008 Presidential election” reality.
You need to get to the 7th stage and accept that McCain lost fair and square back then, crying in front of a TV turned to Fox News while crying and eating chocolate
only benefits the Kleenex and Hershey companies, and does nothing for your complexion.
Wilbur / Quaker : I have given some thought to your comments , and you’re right. I don’t much care what Chief Justice Roberts thinks, and Pres Obama’s an idiot.
Fair enough, Frank.
No Donna, bottom line is that wingnuts like yourself regularly gin up faux outrage over “decorum” when you’re simultaneously slagging off liberals in a most indecorous fashion.
I remember a couple years ago driving down the road listening to some reactionary gasbag on the radio sobbing for ten minutes about how “uncivil” liberals are and lamenting the good old days when we used to be able to discuss politics without insulting one another. Then, before breaking for commercial he puts in a plug for his new book: Surrounded by Idiots: Fighting Liberal Lunacy in America.
Classic.
Wingnuts also use complaints about “decorum” to avoid discussion of the real issues. In the current case, if Roberts disagrees with what the president said in the SOTU fine, let him say so, and let him say why – then we can debate the merits of the case. Instead of doing that he goes the route of “scary different-looking possibly-foreign guy in the white house made me feel uneasy” route.
Chicken shit with knobs on.
WOW another zinger from Donna.
“No, you did.”
Powerful stuff, Donna.
My point was simply that the original post grossly misrepresented what Roberts said.
And to make it you grossly misrepresented the content of the article you linked to in your first comment and then overlooked Roberts’ own gross misrepresentation of Alito’s “expressionless” response.
If Roberts doesn’t have a problem with the President criticizing the court’s decision, and only is only “troubled” by the fact that Obama did it to their faces, well, can I get a ruling on that from the folks throwing around the “thin-skinned” democrats charge?
Buzz, politics is politics and if the court wants to be above it, or at least appear to be above it, perhaps Alito shouldn’t attend events like the State of the Union.
He clearly can’t control himself and, apparently, neither can Roberts.
What? I did little more than paste directly from the AP story, with no representation of the story at all. Are you confusing me with MrGreyGhost somehow?
I did. Apologies. You only completely overlooked Roberts gross grossly misrepresentation of what happened. Alito did not sit there expressionless.
If Roberts is saying that it’s troubling because it would be impossible to ask anyone to sit “expressionless” in such a venue, well, then, Roberts knows the answer to that: Don’t attend if you can’t control yourself.
If Roberts doesn’t think the problem is with Alito’s response, but with Obama’s criticism, then he’s as much a political hack as Alito.
If you would care to suggest which interpretation you think Roberts’ intended, by all means, let us know.
Al Qaida 7? is there a lame wingnut attack you won’t buy wholesale?
Comedy gold.
Oh, okay. You just run with them.
Gotcha.
CG.