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.
“Hitler was a socialist.”
How to prove in four words that the writer knows nothing about history and politics.
Where is Buddah
Hitler was a socialist.
EmpireCookie,
I thought that Buddha had posted. When you stated something about the flying monkeys.
“Of course, all you whacko leftists hate it because ….well, because you are all fascists.”
Robert,
It would be helpful for you to find out something about a subject before you make comments. Communists are Left Wing, Fascists are Right Wing. how do we know? Well one way is that nobody doubts that Adolph Hitler was a Fascist, since he called himself one. He also stated that Communists were his greatest enemies. Fascist = Right Wing Bush people, like you perhaps Robert?
Doyenne,
I’m not sure how you could be even sillier, but I bet you have the ability to be.
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
The State of the Union Faux Pas Offender
President Obama has shown throughout his junior one year tenure that he is a consummate of protocol faux pas’. Diplomatic status relies on rank. When you have two heads of country meeting, there is an equal acknowledgement of status. However, when President Obama showed respect to the Japanese Emperor Akihito with a bow, he did not display proper diplomatic protocol, but rather showed a subservience sign of respect.
This was a duplicate error of his earlier meeting with King Abdulla when he visited Saudi Arabia. Do I need mention his blunders of gift protocol to Premier Brown? Or First Lady Michelle Obama’s touching of Queen Elizabeth? As Chief Officer of Protocol for my town, watching these faux pas was like experiencing the old fingernails on the chalkboard. These acts reflected upon our status as a nation and its effect was reverberated around the world.
Now, a few days into the New Year, on January 28, 2010, we, the US citizens have our Chief of State, President Obama, the host of the State of the Union Address reaching out and back-slapping SCOTUS. I do not know about you, but I prefer my host to be warm and hospitable and not the exact opposite. As President Obama, the host insulted his honored guests with an inaccurate accusation of the court’s decision; the silent murmuring of Justice Alito’s “Not True” did not breach protocol duty. The burden rested entirely on the un-hostly host.
Our Constitution provides for expressed and inherent powers to our President. Article II, Section 2, highlights the power that is taken from the citizens and given to the President. These are the expressed powers. Some of these powers are: President shall:
• be the Commander-in-Chief of the armed services
• have the power to grant reprieves and pardons
• have the power to make treaties
But what are his inherent powers? According to Henry Campbell Black in Black’s law dictionary (Vol. 8), the definition of inherent power is “a power that necessarily derives from an office, position, or status.” For example, President G. W. Bush labeled Al Qaeda as “enemy combatants” and approved NSA wire tapping claiming inherent powers. Discourse within the legislative and judicial branches limit or confirm inherent power. These checks and balances limit the power of the executive branch. http://tinyurl.com/yaw8c6c
Therefore, one would have to conclude that President Obama infers that his inherent power excludes him from displaying proper protocol to all including the United States Supreme Court; so where are the checks and balances, I ask?
Elaine M. said “This two-party system isn’t working for us avergae folks.”
I’m with you Elaine M. The big question is, how do we remedy the problem?
Me thinks Robert has not been reading the posts …
Who let the flying monkey in?
OOOPPPS!
Spelling correction:
This two-party system isn’t working for us AVERAGE folks.
FF LEO & Mike S.
I’m one of those sixty-somethings too. I think we all feel disheartened about what lies ahead for our children and grandchildren.
I’m definitely disappointed about some of the decisions and appointments our president has made. And I’m disgusted with most members of Congress. They’ve done little to help the majority of Americans. This two-party system isn’t working for us avergae folks.
GREAT decision by the Supreme Court. FREE SPEECH prevails again. Of course, all you whacko leftists hate it because ….well, because you are all fascists.
FFLEO,
Can’t say I disagree with much you say. My children and grandchildren face a different world than I face and I worry for them. I am disappointed in the President also because I wrongly assumed he would be much more courageous and tough than he has been. My assessment was that he was not a corporatist and had some feeling for all the American people. Sadly, that doesn’t seem true. I can remember feeling bad for Bill Clinton and that ridiculous impeachment, even though I hated his policies. I felt so bad I even bought his autobiography and read it up to the part when he praised Sam Walton and the head of Tyson Foods. Didn’t read another word. I fear that the President is a man in the same mold and having Mr. Emmanuel as Chief of Staff does nothing to disabuse me of my feelings.
Mike Spindell,
Understood. I simply disagree with *some* of your statements on a purely philosophical level that no amount of debate can ameliorate; however, no measure of respect is lost in our differences.
I do not have the answers, although I see the U.S sinking further into an abyss that we are unlikely to recover from if drastic measures remain unimplemented. I simply and naively thought that Mr. Obama would be the person to make those changes—mostly because McCain/Palin gave me no other logical options. Once again, Obama stated in his address that he was not interested in correcting the past (paraphrased) and that stated all I needed to know about his character, henceforth. If we do not correct the past wrongs, we will forevermore continue to repeat them.
You, others and I in the over 60-age class were afforded a good life by working hard, educating ourselves, and trying to do what was ethical and right. Nowadays, no matter how “perfect’ a young educated person is—through following all of the rules, regulations, and laws—there are no real opportunities for success in a now less free and less prosperous world that we were privileged to have known.
UnionJack: Ok now I understand, thanks.
So the record is straight. I did not vote for Obama. I can also in the same breath he bated the Sct just like Bush did congress or one of his henchmen. The rebuke is not surprising at all on either side.
The deviousness of both parties is apparent. It just depends on where.
“WASHINGTON — It is not unusual for presidents to disagree publicly with Supreme Court decisions. But they tend to do so at news conferences and in written statements, not to the justices’ faces.”
Now THAT’s change we can believe in!
I hope Obama does not bow to the right wing and even think about apologizing.
Quote:
Supreme Court Gets a Rare Rebuke, in Front of a Nation
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: January 28, 2010
WASHINGTON — It is not unusual for presidents to disagree publicly with Supreme Court decisions. But they tend to do so at news conferences and in written statements, not to the justices’ faces.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/politics/29scotus.html
“FFLEO The justices do not deserve anymore respect than do the politicians. It changed with Bush v. Gore.”
Swarthmore Mom has it correct. Since that decision SCOTUS has been compromised as a non-political, separate and independent branch of government. O’connor and Rehnquist may be gone, but their replacement by Alito and Roberts has made things worse. While Rehnquist was a Nixon defender during Watergate, O’Connor, while a conservative used independent judgement. A & R are simply ideological hacks, with a lockstep devotion to corporate power.
This particular decision can destroy whatever Democracy we have left in this country and turn it into a corporate (fascist) state. Given that commenting on it in the SOTU speech was perfectly appropriate. As to Alito’s anger I don’t think what he did was of any import. He feels that SCOTUS judges deserve respect, when he is one who has cheapened SCOTUS.
FFLEO, if Al gore had been elected, despite your low opinion of him, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would still be alive, not to mentioned more than three thousand of our troops. We also would not be running huge deficits and the economy might have shown growth for the past decade. All of us who do not repesent the top 5% of the country’s wealthiest people, would probably be living better lives. That is true even if conceding
Gore’s problems. If it was my son or daughter, thinking they were defending our country, being killed in a meaningless, illegal war my life would be over.