Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Justice, Media, Politics, Society

Justice Alito Shown Shaking His Head and Mouthing “Not True” in Response to State of the Union Address

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.

178 thoughts on “Justice Alito Shown Shaking His Head and Mouthing “Not True” in Response to State of the Union Address”

  1. I was poking fun at the other regulars who kept saying you were. That is why I wrote the word “Seriously” after my comment. I do not care who you or Bdaman are as long as you contribute to this blawg in a positive manner and I think that you both are.

  2. FFLEO,

    I am not bdaman. I guess I could state that until I am blue in the face, and some would still believe that there can’t possibly be more than one person who would have the nerve to present an opposing view.

  3. Duh, you B da Man? Duh!

    Seriously, I voted NO and the vote stands at 50% NO to 48.5% YES

  4. I agree with Swarthmore mom when she said, “The justices do not deserve anymore respect than do the politicians. It changed with Bush v. Gore.”

  5. I bet some of those justices would have voted differently in some of those birther suits they conferenced now that Obama has called them out.

  6. Ms. EM’,

    Very funny, a DH for the corporations. I like the ideal of cutting out the middlemen and midwomen, for sure, no more congresspersons…corps instead of corpses.

  8. FFLEO said “If I were a justice, I would never attend a forum where a bunch of pompous, clapping seals bobbed up and down like synchronized jack-in-the-box clowns in a chamber of nonsense for a play of allegiance to the current emperor.”

    So true. That’s all State of the Union addresses have become. Just once I would like to see a President just tell Congress the state of the Union.

    I don’t want to see the faces of the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House. I don’t want to see who applauds and who just sits there. This thing has become more like a pep rally in which both teams are required to attend.

    Chastizing the Justices of the Supreme Court while expecting them to remain silent and respectful of the President is to put the Executive above the Court. He’s not their daddy. They are deserving of as much respect as the President.

  9. What follows is the concluding paragraph of Zinn’s report:

    “I am Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Boston University. I plan to serve pro bono in this case. I haven’t testified in any case, as expert or otherwise, for several years. Attached is a biographical summary of my academic career and my writings.” (Howard Zinn)

    Zinn’s autobiography is appropriately titled: “You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train.”

  10. eniobob –

    Thanks for your comment about Howard Zinn, as well as the DN link. (My apologies for running off-topic.)

    Here’s another link. “Refer to “Report of proposed expert Howard Zinn, Professor Emeritus, Political Science, Boston University.”

    In Zinn’s honor, how about a “truth and reconciliation commission” (with teeth) to get to the bottom of what’s been going for the past God-only-knows how many years? (Whatever happened to Leahy’s initiative?)

    http://www.judibari.org/COINTELPRO-OOP_020514.pdf

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    THE ESTATE OF JUDI BARI,
    and DARRYL CHERNEY,
    Plaintiffs,
    vs.
    FBI Special Agent FRANK DOYLE, Jr., et al.,
    Defendants.
    Case No. C-91-1057 CW (JL)
    OFFER OF PROOF
    (AMENDED)
    May 14, 2002
    Judge WILKEN
    PLAINTIFFS’ OFFER OF PROOF REGARDING FBI MISCONDUCT

  13. FFLEO,

    To paraphrase my Mom: I don’t care who started it, someone should have finished it.

    We hold different people to different standards depending on their jobs. As a musician, I’m not allowed to shake my head in a wedding ceremony if the officiant says that marriages that don’t involve Christ are doomed to fail.

    That’s not to excuse what the President said, that’s just to say Alito should have had the same self control that millions of people who bite their tongue because of the etiquette of a situation.

  14. FFLEO The justices do not deserve anymore respect than do the politicians. It changed with Bush v. Gore.

  15. On the lighter side of judicial matters–I remember Sammy Davis Jr. on Laugh-In decades ago.

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hIcKkKID8k&hl=en_US&fs=1&]

  16. Paraphrastically speaking from another point of view,

    “In a breach of protocol”, President Obama “was filmed” (and loudly heard) “during the State of the Union address last night” mouthing off “a response of “the President’s criticism of the Citizens United ruling on corporate campaign finance limits”.

    For a President, “this breach is no less remarkable. It is, in a word,” unpresidential.

    The President “should apologize to” Justice Alito, the Supreme Court of the United States “and to Congress (he and his colleagues are guests of the United States” *Electorate*) “for the incident.”

    “This is not Oprah,” a’vistin’ the White House, Mr. President, while agreeing with your silly self aggrandized grade B+ for lyin’ n’ pledge breakin’, “it is the State of the Union.” “When it comes to the justices, they should ideally not even applaud let alone express their views.” However, during this address and previous addresses, all justices sometimes stand up, applaud their approval, and perhaps frown inwardly with their disapproval while swearing under their breaths.

    If I were a justice, I would never attend a forum where a bunch of pompous, clapping seals bobbed up and down like synchronized jack-in-the-box clowns in a chamber of nonsense for a play of allegiance to the current emperor.

  17. What domestic politician wants to be known as the “Manchurian” candidate?”

    Mespo,
    how about George Bush, brother of Saudi Prince Bandar?

  18. UnionJacK

    Agreed, but the nefariousness involves surreptitious support by foreign nationals. What domestic politician wants to be known as the “Manchurian” candidate?

  19. Let me attempt to add some reason to the discussion of “foreign” corporations. If by “foreign,” one would mean owned and controlled by foreign interests, then Obama was certinly correct in saying that the decision was opening the door to allowing campaign expenditures by such entity, — as long as that particular corporation was incorporated in the U.S. The current restriction on campaign contributions and expendutires by foreign “nationals” (2 U.S.C. 441e)uses the definition of “foreign national” in the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), and that includes businesses that are incorporated or do their major business in a foreign country. (22 U.S.C. 611). Now, a U.S.-incorporated subsidiary of a foreign corporation, doing business in the U.S. (Honda America, BP America, Sony America)even if it is 99% owned by foreign interests is certainly not a “foreign national” under FARA, and therefore may NOW make unlimted expenditures to influence elections in the U.S. I believe this is the issue that concerns people.
    Even if you argue that they are under the “control” or direction of a foreign principal, they need only to register under FARA to carry out political acts in the U.S., and are not prohibted from making contributions.

  20. so prof. turley which is it? my reading of the fec’s foreign nationals’ brochure is that they can’t start a pac but can contribute to one. please weigh in. i am siding with stevens on this one for now.

Comments are closed.