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.
FF LEO–
I’ve been disappointed in some of the decisions and appointments Obama has made since he assumed office–but I think the Republicans and some Blue Dog Democrats are mainly responsible for the gridlock in Washington.
Roberts and Alito lied in their testimony to Congress prior to their appointments. The said that they would unequivocally support stare decisis. This decision clearly does not and moreover over reaches by far what the Plaintiffs were asking for. It was a political act, by men whose partisanship is such that they are unfit to be judges of any kind. All “Robert Borks,” who at least is honest about his desires.
Nal wrote:
“I think you should go on Countdown tonight to discuss this breach.”
If Professor Turley does that with the same biased, one-sided tone of his article then he will enter the Hypocrite Party in good standing alongside Mr. Obama…
“The Democrats had control of all three for 22 of those years, and the Republicans controlled all three for just 4 years.”
Duh,
As usual your knowledge of history is incorrect and partisan.
From 1932 through 1964 while there were more Democrats in Congress, at least a third were “Dixiecrats.” These were racist conservatives who got powerful chairmanships by dint of longevity. They voted with the majority of Republicans on many issues and so prevented much legislative support of what Democratic Presidents proposed. They were nominal Democrats simply because Lincoln was a Republican. In 1968 the game changed and they defected in large numbers to support and become Republican’s. Nixon, whose “Southern Strategy” got him elected President,was a tactic openly discussed by his party.
That is the history of it and if you don’t know it you are talking from ignorance and if you do know it you’re talking from deceit.
Apologize to the president? LOL! The five fascists on that court should apologize to the American people for royally screwing us with that awful decision (which Turley supported).
“Now, the opinion left the door open for Congress to write a law that does exclude foreign corporations.”
Why would Congress bother, when both foreign corporations (and foreign individuals) are already prohibited from contributing.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml
Incidentily, this is a law Al Gore weaseled around in 1996.
Or as FDR showed that he could pack the court. There is no limit to the number of Sct Justices. I think conservatives make the best in Criminal cases and Liberals in Civil cases before them. Maybe they could have two court systems. One Criminal and One Civil.
Slart: No question Obama has the right to be an asshole. It does not mean he should do it.
Bottom line: he lied to the American public. He knows better. He knows what the holding actually means. He is a con law professor after all. Shameful.
Alito is full of it. The decision said nothing about ownership of corporations, and in overturning the law allowed ALL corporations, foreign owned or not, to spend as much money on “political speech” as they wanted. That is the truth.
Now, the opinion left the door open for Congress to write a law that does exclude foreign corporations. Which will then go to the Supreme Court, and the Court will then decide whether or not foreign corporations are guaranteed the same right to free speech as US corporations.
Here’s my definition of “foreign” — a single share owned by someone other than a US national. How about a company owned 49% by the government of China? Or a company who’s controlling interest is foreign, even if it’s not a majority of the shareholders? A privately owned subsidiary of a foreign corporation?
I foresee many, MANY court cases, with Alito, et. al. deciding narrowly, kicking the can down the road yet again.
This whole “originalism” is a load of BS. If the authors of the Constitution thought that corporations should be involved in the political process, they would have given them a vote. The principles of our government are based on human rights. This decision equates artificial entities with people, and grants them rights given humans by their “Creator”.
Time for an amendment, courtesy of the best Supreme Court money could buy.
You will see that truth is the best Defense.
Like to statement: You cannot awake a person pretending to be asleep. Navajo Proverb. I think mespo posted it.
It is like another I read, it makes sense too. Everyone is naked right before they get dressed.
Wayne,
That’s why they call it the ‘bully pulpit’. Justice Alito had his say – in the decision of the SCOTUS. President Obama had every right (an obligation, even) to voice his opposition to a decision which although it may have been correct on the law, was nonetheless corrosive to our republic. As long as he advocates measures allowed by the Constitution (i.e. a congressional law which passes a SCOTUS challenge or an amendment) I would certainly hope that the president would speak out in such a high-profile forum about a decision that is so dangerous.
Come on. Obama LIED about the holding in Citizens United.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/blogging-the-presidents-address/#t20h31m
It doesn’t make you a partisan to shake your head about that. (I’m not saying that Alito is not a partisan, but his head shake is not evidence of it.)
To lie about the holding before the nation and then earn a standing ovation from those in attendance. Tacky to say the least. It makes Obama come across like a bully and an asshole.
Good for Alito.
Mr. Obama is *not* the aggrieved party here. He knows that the State of the Union does not involve debate and he picked the fight knowing that the Justices’ hands were tied.
I can hardly bear to listen to Obama and his lies. He is largely responsible for any current gridlock and disillusionment of government because of those lies and broken pledges.
Professor Turley, given your strong free speech advocacy—further demonstrated by your agreement the Court’s recent decision—your liberal bias is showing within this article regarding Justice Alito.
Thanks AY, love you too. Muaw XOXOXOXOX
At least you are being honest.
Oh I got one Slart, the one about Hypothermia, I had already warned everyone to get their comments in on that thread cuz I was gonna hijack it.
Swathmore Mom, right here with ya. Been married twice, I have a 25 year old, a 24 year old with three of my grand children and a 4 year old with this marraige.
Cute story for you. My daughter came over one day this past summer with my 3 grand kids. My grand kids call me papa or grand pa. We decided we would go to the pool. My daughter has a 4 Runner and I have a two seater. I decided I would drive my car and my daughter would drive hers with my grand children. We are in the drive way and my 4 year old says to my grand kids as they are walking to their car, ” hey guys, I’m not gonna be riding wiff you, I’m gonna ride wiff my grand pa”
Bdaman,
Find a dead thread (or a climate change thread other than the one hijacked by the 9/11 argument) and post there.
Slart I wouls like to discuss it with you but I don’t want to be seen as a Jacker of Threads. Is there a place I could give you my answer. You have know Idea what has been uncovered the last two weeks. There are calls for Pachuri to resign and they are most vocal about it in Europe. Here in the U.S. not so much.
puzzling
The executive and legislative branches in several states, particularly more conservative ones, where the states’ highest court ruled (correctly) that equal protection clauses requires states to recognize same-sex marriage, went into high gear changing statutes and constitutions in reaction to the court decision. See how that works?