In a breach of protocol, Associate Justice Sam Alito was filmed during the State of the Union address last night shaking his head and mouthing “not true” in response to the President’s criticism of the Citizens United ruling on corporate campaign finance limits. Ironically, Rep. Joe Wilson promised to restrain himself during this speech and not scream “you lie” again during the President’s speech. For a justice, this breach (shown below) is no less remarkable. It is, in a word, injudicious.
Justices are expected not to express support or opposition to a president during the State of the Union — symbolizing the neutrality of the Court. This demonstration of Alito’s views undermines that principle and makes the Court look partisan and rather petty. Whether or not Obama overstated the holding is completely immaterial — just as immaterial as what Obama was referencing when Wilson screamed “You Lie!’
Justice are expected to speak through their opinions alone. Indeed, the relatively recent trend of justices speaking at conferences and associational meetings have troubled many of us. I have long favored the prior view that justices rarely speak in public — largely confined to graduations, funerals and the like. While Alito clearly experienced an uncontrolled moment, justices are expected to control themselves and act judiciously — particularly at major events like a State of the Union.
Alito should apologize to the President and to Congress (he and his colleagues are guests of the United States Congress) for the incident. Notably, if a president (or any citizen) goes to a court of law and mouths objections, they risk a contempt warning or sanction from the judge. No one requires a justice to come to the State of the Union. The price of this particular trick is to remain stoic and neutral. As with Wilson, there is limited audience participation. This is not Oprah, it is the State of the Union. When it comes to the justices, they should ideally not even applaud let alone express their views. They are present to show the unity of the tripartite system, but also to reaffirm the strict neutrality and apolitical role of the Court.
For commentary on the incident, click here (Glenn Greenwald) and here (Huff) and here (Politico) and here.
Duh,
I haven’t seen anyone come up with a previous example yet. If someone did, my money’s on FDR.
Has the President ever gone after a SCOTUS decision during the State of the Union before?
Sm said “Wish Al Gore had been elected. He would not have invaded Iraq. He would not have chosen Cheney for VP. I think it was a tragedy for the USA when the SCOTUS chose Bush.”
I can’t be sure about Iraq, but I’ll put money on you being right about choosing Cheney. I’ve never trusted Cheney. I don’t trust anybody from the Nixon Administration.
The Supreme Injustices, the conservatives that is, are accustomed to being able to humiliate those appearing before the court. They are accustomed to asserting their opinions with the servile accolades of a captive audience. So it must have been tough for Herr Alito to have to sit still while Obama treated his crimes so mildly.
depressed in NH,
Are you providng stats to make the player look better?
Since 1945, the Democrats have controlled the House 52 of those years, while the Republicans controlled the House for 14 years. In that same period, the Democrats have controlled the Senate for 46 of the years, and the Republicans were in control for 20 years. For 30 of those years we had a Democrat as President, and for 36 of those years we had a Republican as President.
The Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate for 44 of those years, and the Republican controlled both for 12 of those years.
The Democrats had control of all three for 22 of those years, and the Republicans controlled all three for just 4 years.
The Democrats have had more power, by a large margin since 1945.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm
puzzling,
In our system the different branches of government are supposed to act as checks on each other. When the supreme court rules in a way that the president (and many others) believe is corrosive to our republic, I think he was perfectly justified in calling for congress to pass legislation correcting that egregious ruling.
It might have been more interesting if Scalia had been there to give his customary Sicilian response to Obama.
Surely this comment by Obama was intended only to underscore his deep respect for the separation of powers and an independent judiciary.
Obama’s comments and stated intention to work around speech protections established down by the Court reminded me of Bush and his signing statements. Would Chavez be proud of our President today?
From December 15, 2009:
Jailing of judge over ruling, Chavez’s criticism, stir debate on Venezuelan court system
Last week, Supreme Court president Luisa Estela Morales said Venezuela has moved away from “a rigid separation of powers” toward a system characterized by “intense coordination” between the branches of government.
Chavez, who was in the audience, said Morales was right that “the separation of powers weakens the state.”
Bdaman,
What did you think of President Obama comment that even without the overwhelming science supporting climate change reducing pollution is still good policy? I wish I’d said that. Oh wait, I did. 😉
Former Justice O’Connor Sees Ill in Election Finance Ruling
Published: January 26, 2010
WASHINGTON— Justice Sandra Day O’Connor did not sound happy on Tuesday about the Supreme Court’s big campaign finance decision last week. It repudiated a major part of a ruling Justice O’Connor helped write before her retirement from the court in 2006, and it complicated her recent efforts to do away with judicial elections.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/us/politics/27judge.html?pagewanted=all
Do not call me mom. I have a 25 year old son. Wish Al Gore had been elected. He would not have invaded Iraq. He would not have chosen Cheney for VP. I think it was a tragedy for the USA when the SCOTUS chose Bush.
I think you should go on Countdown tonight to discuss this breach.
Mom, I hope you don’t mind me calling you that, I just don’t feel like keying in Swath any More.
Anyways, believe it or not, I do not believe in the election process anymore since 2000. I feel that yes, although the 2000 election was stolen from Gore or given to Bush, however you want to look at it. Between the two, Gore vs Bush the selection of Bush was a better choice in 2000. The guy who invented the internet also appears to have help invent Global Warming. He’s gotten rich of the scheme, stands to become even richer, so in hindsight he’s probably not complainning.
Then in 2004, Bush again was selected because he would ” keep us safe”. Then in 2008 Obama was selected, so here we are.
Wonder who they will select in 2012.
Think about it. Out of the last 40 years, Republicans have been in power for 28 of them. Out of the last 30 years Republicans have been in power for 20 of them. Out of the last 10 years, Republicans have been in power for 8 of them. I find it ironic that Republicans are claiming Obama’s programs aren’t working after 1 year when their programs have been shown not to work over the past 40. Alito’s head shaking shows the politicalization of the conservative branch of SCOTUS and the denial as well.
Bdaman: “simply not true.”
–That’s what I thought he said too.
“Who ever I am today, it’s…”
—Don’t go there, everybody’s playing nice.
I know how you feel; Bdaman.
Peace out
Bdaman And the Supreme Court did not award the election to Bush, right? This a an activist political republican SCOTUS.
Who ever I am today, it’s
“simply not true.”
When you are God, can there be any before you?
The president had taken the unusual step of scolding the high court in his State of the Union address Wednesday. “With all due deference to the separation of powers,” he said, the court last week “reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.”
Alito made a dismissive face, shook his head repeatedly and appeared to mouth the words “not true” or possibly “simply not true.”
Alito’s head-shaking, though only two rows directly in front of Obama, wasn’t the “You lie!” moment that brought the president’s last speech to Congress to a screeching halt. In fact, Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., who shouted it, was stonefaced throughout Obama’s latest speech, even rising a few times to applaud.
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/28/AR2010012800508.html
Loved the smack-down Obama gave SCOTUS. And, Alito needn’t have done what he did, as it is alreay known that he’s a partisan hack. Therefore, his childish behavior didn’t surprise me. Impartial justice indeed **end sarcasm**.
I’m REALLY surprised, however, that it appears no one picked up on McCain saying, “Blame it on Bush” when Obama was laying out the facts of the colossal mess he inherited, a mess many seem to think Obama would make magically disappear within mere months. Sorry if the truth hurts but, them be da facts.