White House Pushes Back Against Chief Justice's Criticism: Citizens United Decision Was 'Troubling'

What's "troubling" is for a nominee to the Supreme Court to be able to lie, under oath, about his "respect" for Stare Decisis, and not face impeachment in the Senate for having worked on numerous occasions to undermine a century's worth of precedent.

Gibb's response had nothing to do with the question of "decorum", obviously, because the legendary consensus-builder and bi-partisan president likes to say one thing but do another.

So I wish Roberts said to hell with decorum, too, and called Obama out for lying about Citizen's United in the SOTU.

And all of America wonders on thing: What does Clarence Thomas think of this weighty issue? And we wait. And we wait....

Fuck this guy. Just the right douchebag to head up the loathesome, traitorious pack of shitheads who brought us GWB. Hey, Rove and company, talk to me about "activist judges." I fucking dare you.

From those of us who know a little bit about CJ Roberts - and something the theocrats in the Senate purposefully avoided during the confirmation hearings.....Roberts has been a long standing member or THE FAMILY in D.C. He is a far right religious extremist. It was easy to predict where Roberts would take the court......Bush being a born againer, chose fellow boarn againers like Roberts for the court.

If you don't want a US Theocracy - then start speaking out to our government officials and elected reps.

Kennedy was probably assassinated by the Family and its ties to the military establishment. (key members of the Warren Commission such as Gerry Ford were part of THE FAMILY).

Do you think Obama is hearing whispers from the darkside....if you don't back off, we'll do to you what we did to Kennedy?

Roberts is part of THE FAMILY.....he's part of the expanding US Theocracy. The have's will take everything if we let them.

Roberts said;

"...literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court -- according the requirements of protocol -- has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

Roberts obviously missed Alito at the SOTU mouthing the words "not true" after Obama's comment on the ruling. One should ask Roberts if Alito broke protocol.

Justice Roberts should deflate himself, along with his Starboard colleagues.

He's a lawyer in a robe. Nominated by an idiot.

The best strategy to use against Roberts is to ensure that Federal judges, like Social Security recipients, get little or no cost of living adjustments in pay in the coming years. Sooner or later, his greed will get the better of him, and he will be off to a multi-million $ private offer while he is still young enough to enjoy the money.

What is it with this "liberal" site going after Roberts as a gay man? Is that really relevant to anything to do with this spat with Obama? Believe me, a straight man could be just as lousy a SC Justice (sic) as any gay man, just like a black President can be equally as disappointing as a white President.

All you need to know about Roberts........Member of Federalist Society.

OMG, no politician has EVER questioned a SCOTUS decision before! Well, maybe except for Roe v Wade. And all the bitching and moaning about Miranda v Arizona. And I'm sure people were totally cool with Brown v Board of Ed. back in the civil rights era. And of course, I think there were some wingnuts who had a problem with Marbury v. Madison. But other than that? Never.

Roberts is a tool.

and this idea that obama broke with any sort of tradition is not true either. perhaps he broke with recent tradition. but then if not telling the court that it is full of shit is the current state of decorum, i would argue that that is what's 'broken' and needs changing.

I liked it better when supreme court justices kept their mouths shut. Damn, conservatives love to listen to the sound of their own voices don't they.

What do you expect from this slime bucket? "Hey, you talkin' ta me?"
After handing an election to his party, the court has expanded the powers of private, well-funded, and unaccountable institutions to influence elections. Both without precedent.
We are all as a nation under the thumb of special corrupt interests and until we unite we are doomed to be their victims. And Roberts, you are acting as their consigliere.

The Roberts Court made a terrible ruling and was called out on it.

Now, Roberts is not only pouting, he's completely thrown his impartiality out the window and jumped into politics -- with both feet -- with a full attack on the President of the United States, saying that this is an issue of "decorum." But, that "decorum" stuff is nothing more than a red herring that many in the media will gladly chase.

The real issue, which Roberts wants to take the attention off of, is the brazen activism of Roberts Court. And, it should astound and concern many that he feels that he can not only engage in activism in the courtroom, overturning precedent, but he also thinks that HE should dictate when and where he should be criticized for his egregious activism.

When you put forth a ruling that overturns precedent, invites a greater corporate role into our politics, and diminishes the voice of everyday citizens, all with one fell swoop, you shouldn't be surprised if the President calls you out to your face.

[By the way, I'm pretty sure that he's not the first one to criticize a Supreme Court ruling during the SOTU.]

Then don't go, you stupid hack. Anyway, you don't want to get behind on your parsing of the collected wisdom of Rush and Beck in order to figure out how to rule on your cases.

Or, you could spend that time practicing on how to give the oath of office to the President. Maybe then you could get it right in time for January, 2012.

Keep up that winsome smile though, it has taken you very far in life! (Too bad is masks the soul of a scowling right wing shill.)

Hopefully many here understand what this Justice has done to Democracy. He has destroyed it. Allowing foreign subsidiaries to contribute to political campaigns as well as Corporations in general is codifying fascism (yes, I mean this and use the word understanding its meaning). Additionally, he has codified Corporations(state entitled entities) with more rights than actual human citizens.

I never thought a worse decision than Dred Scott could have occurred in theses times, I was wrong. There was the Bush vs. Gore decision, no point to go into any detail with that joke of a decision other than saying, since when is counting all legally cast ballots a constitutional issue, and now melding for profit, private business entities with the government. What’s next from this Fascist?

Phuk Yoo, Sloberts.

The Supreme Court lost all claim to being a non-partisan institution with Bush v. Gore. The fact that Roberts is now lashing out in public against a President from a different party (yes, member of the Supreme Court function as members of political parties, and everyone knows it) only further underscores the Courts essentially partisan nature in 2010.

Politics is the only reason he got on the court!!!!!

Fine. Justices, you're still invited to the SOTU, but you're under no obligation to show up. If you do show up, feel free to stand up and cheer or fold your arms and harumph just like all the cool kids from the Legislative branch get to do.

All better now, Chief Justice Roberts? Or would you like a snack and a juicebox, too?

presidents are always voicing opinions about SC decisions.. is Roberts saying they should do so only when they agree with the decisions? this is total crap.. the President is just as entitled as any other citizen to voice approval or disapproval of SC decisions...

The reason the Repukes want this is because they're scared, they definitely do not want another non white to make it to the White House, so they open the flood gates for financing campaigns, thinking that will allow them the freedom to use any and all monies, any and all swift boat tactics to win. But they forget, the Dems have rich friends too. Besides, we're much smarter. And can float like a butterfly and sting like a bee if we have to.

Who'd a thunk such a man would be so sensitive. He has no place on the court if he can't take a bit of disagreement between branches of government. The right is always whining about an activist court, and now they've gone and given away our elections to the monied set - and get angry when someone disagrees with them.

Give us Bush, shame on you. Letting you sell our elections to the highest bidder, shame on us.

Regarding John Roberts, the one word which should always be mentioned is "Hamdan".

Ahmed Hamdan's case (about the kangaroo courts in Guantanamo), a major focus for Bush & Cheney when Justice O'Connor retired, was being heard by a three-judge panel - including Roberts - when her seat was offered to Roberts by the B&C regime. The decision came down 2-1 in favor of the torturers and treaty-breakers, but we can be sure that if Roberts had ruled in favor of human rights, the rule of law, etc, that his nomination would have been withdrawn on grounds of unreported taxi-tips or the like, by sundown.

The fact that our Chief Justice "earned" his position by de facto bribery - that his seat was the bribe - was, of course, duly pointed out and thoroughly disregarded at his confirmation hearings (thanks again, Democrats!) - but us lowly citizens should never forget.

I remember when Roberts swore in Obama for the inauguration. The look of contempt/disregard/hate in Roberts eyes was obvious. I couldn't tell if it was Robert's distaste for swearing in a Democrat or a personal dislike of Obama. Roberts was staring daggers at Obama and flubbed his lines. Real professional. A class act.....NOT.

The Justices are nominated by the Office of the President,the Executive Branch. Does that not show, whoever has the right to appoint, has the right to speak?

Isn't that is the checks and balance, to assure the Judiciary does not abuse it's authority?

What laws deliberated and written by the Congress concerning campaign finance reform were "faithfully executed", to support the intention of the Congress attempting to reign in the abuse of Corporatism?

Roberts and the court abused it's power when the court failed to " ...take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Section 3.) By using these words, the Constitution does not require the President to personally enforce the law; rather, officers subordinate to the President may perform such duties. The Constitution, empowers the President to ensure the faithful execution of the laws made by Congress.

The Roberts court knew full well, the intention of the Eecutive and the Legislatures intent, to reign in the abuses and corrupting power of Corporatism.

The New President has every right to speak up and question the Justices. That's the part of the checks and balance imposed upon the Judicial Branch.
Otherwise the Judicial Branch has the ability to overturn the seperation of powers.

If it takes the Executive Branch to nominate a Justice, then the right should be extended to every New Executive to question whether the Law's are faithfully executed.

Impeach the Justices and see whether they can muster enough support from the Senate to hold their seats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution

So he doesn't refute Obama's claim -- he just doesn't want to be called out on national TV.

Give the devil his due: Ronald Reagan turned the State of the Union report into a pep rally, and no president since has had the sense, guts or stones to make it what the Constitution meant it to be: a report to Congress of how the nation is doing. The only one I ever enjoyed watching was Clinton's after he was impeached when he rammed it up the collective tight buns of the Republican side of the House, but that was theater, and not something that led to any meaningful action by anyone, uneless you count the 5 Republican votes against impeachment after the Senate trial.

Harry Truman used to always have to remind himself not to get in a pissing match with a skunk. I fear Obama might have done that and at the end of the day will have nothing to show for it but a bad smell. The bad news is that the Roberts wing of the Court is younger than than shall we say, the Stevens/Ginsburg wing and without fourteen or more straight years of Democratic presidents likely to prevail until everyone reading this blog is getting social security.

"I'm not sure why we're there," Roberts said. "[T]here is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum. The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court -- according the requirements of protocol -- has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

Oooh, itty poo! His feewings were hurt!

Seriously: you're there, Justice Roberts, because the Judicial branch is one of the three branches. And last time I checked, we all still had Freedom of Speech (despite Ari Fleischer's warnings), and so the President is free to criticize your rulings if he wishes. And this ruling is particularly criticism-worthy.

Justice Roberts, during your confirmation hearing you made all the right noises about respecting established law and stare decisis; when you hypocritically turn your back on those pronouncements and issue a ruling that overturns several decades of established law, you do in fact open yourself up to criticism. And I feel no sympathy for you, sir; given that you're appointed for life, I think it would be a good thing if you could face the anger of the citizens whose lives are directly affected by your rulings once in a while. Getting called on the carpet once a year hardly seems excessive.

I can understand Chief Judge Robert's discomfort at being publicly rebuked by the Commander in Chief - and it may well have been inappropriate to do so at the SOTU - but the SCOTUS is one of three co-equal branches of government, the SOTU is an important annual event for the country and government, and SCOTUS members should have a thicker skin. Article III Judges have lifetime tenure, can be removed only upon impeachment, and SCOTUS is essentially answerable to no higher authority. In all, pretty rarified air. Further, the very decision in question dealt with free speech and the Commander in Chief was freely expressing is view on a decision that troubles many people in this country in respect the elevation of corporate interests over those of indivduals damn the consequences to our republic. Further, if he was so troubled, he could have aired his opinion right then and there but perhaps he too is concerned about the correctness of the SCOTUS decision which broke down along conservative (corporate) and liberal (individual) lines.

when are we going to have a beat the crap out of a supreme court justice day?

Roberts is, what's the legal term?, a lying sack of shit. Just calling balls and strikes my ass! The problem is Roberts, Alito, Scalia and most of the other justices (Sotomayer is the only one with experience as a working trial judge, and none have significant professional experience outside the legal field) the law is an abstraction. It's not something that effects them personally, just a logic puzzle they can play with as a hobby, which just happens to also be their day job.

Roberts has never spoken against the Republican's frequent calls for the tarring and feathering of "activist judges," which always bring the faithful to their feet crying "Amen".

I think what this really boils down to is Roberts' feeling that it was disrespectful to say this to his face so that he had to hear the shouts in person.