Marcus concludes her pieceby drawing on a bit of history:

In his forthcoming book, "Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court," former Bill Clinton speechwriter Jeff Shesol describes how Roosevelt toned down the confrontational language that appeared in earlier drafts but still used his 1937 State of the Union address to take the court to task for blocking New Deal legislation. "The judicial branch also is asked by the people to do its part in making democracy successful," Roosevelt said. "The process of our democracy must not be imperiled by the denial of essential powers of free government."

Roosevelt, Shesol writes, was disappointed to look up and see that none of the justices were present. Apparently tipped off, or fearing that they would be the target of presidential criticism, they stayed away -- as Roberts might next year.

That would, I think, be a mistake. If conservative justices boycott a Democratic president's State of the Union address, who, then, will be politicizing the court?

I have to side with Roberts on this one.

Roberts is a cowardly schmuck.

Fuck that biatch with a stick.

Be Well.

Ruth Bader-Ginberg RULES!!!

Be Well.

Funny article. Obama has the thinnest skin of any president in recent memory.

One reason America is getting sick and tired of him already.

22%.

Funny article. Obama has the thinnest skin of any president in recent memory.
#5 | Posted by rightisright

Funny comment. The article's not about Obama. LOL!

Yes, it is.

Funny comment. The article's not about Obama. LOL!
#6 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Certainly more about Obama, than Bush, but this thread is only 7 posts, just wait, it will be about Bush before long, or when AU gets here.

"Certainly more about Obama, than Bush"

I wonder why that would be, since it's clearly about Roberts's infantile reaction to Obama's State of the Union speech.

C'mon, kids: focus.

Roberts will be there long after that festering black boil on Americas ass is gone.

Roberts will be there long after that festering black boil on Americas ass is gone.

Don't be such a pessimist.

Roberts could always get run over by a bus or take stock in his wasted life and jump off a tall building or something.

Dare to dream!

Be Well.

/PS, yer a racist fuckstain!

#10 | Posted by STIRSUMUP | Flag: Hopeless Hater - Lost Cause

From NRO--

The Roberts Kerfuffle [Ramesh Ponnuru]

Dahlia Lithwick writes that "the president has every right to criticize the court, and the justices have every right to appear annoyed." So far, so good. What's inappropriate, in her view, was not Obama's conduct or Alito's but rather Chief Justice Roberts's. She faults Roberts for "lobbing long-distance partisan attacks at Congress and the president" and lacking "the courage to insult" Obama to his face. So it's okay for justices to respond to criticism with facial expressions but not with words? How does that make any sense?

Ruth Marcus writes that Roberts is a "big crybaby" either for preferring not to be criticized in a forum where he cannot respond, or for responding later. She concludes that for the conservative justices to stay away from future State of the Union addresses would be "a mistake" although she identifies no reason for thinking that the justices have any duty to be there, nor even any good that their presence serves. She concludes, "If conservative justices boycott a Democratic president's State of the Union address, who, then, will be politicizing the court?" If by "politicizing the court" she means making the Court the subject of political controversy, then the answer is that both the president and the justices will have done so but by Marcus's own (correct) argument, that's alright, since "the court is and should be part of the conversation." If, on the other hand, by "politicizing the court" she means joining that conversation in some improper way, then the answer is that nobody will have done so; and she doesn't even try to explain why she holds otherwise.

So Roberts, you think you shouldn't have to sit there stone faced? Yeah, that worked out for Alito. Do it, Roberts. Show America where you stand on Corporate funding of Political Ads. Better yet, don't show up next time and let the cameras show the empty seats.

Let's remind America exactly what Republicans stand for.

Roberts has job protection for life and still cries like a baby because the Pres, who answers to the VOTERS every 4 yrs (2 yrs for congress) suggests that he is not infallible.

His job for life is potected so that a Pres, or Congress can not fire him for unpopular decission. OK fair enuff.

To think that Roberts, or the court in total, is also supposed to never hear a criticism is a bit too much.

Sorry, not buying it Mr. Judicial Activist. The decission blows. You are not too sacred to hear about it.

Roberts' problem is that he thinks he's above it all, that the court is sacrosanct. Of course it isn't, it's just the third leg of the stool. I had no idea he was such a revered jurist, and that his many stunning constitutional opinions are taught in law schools far and wide.

Roberts is a cowardly schmuck.

#3 | Posted by dethspud at

what a crock of potatos...

so barry can stand there as president and attack the SC and have all of the goddamn dems stand up all around the SC and get away with being uncivil by the lest and an asshole at worst and you say that ROBERTS is a coward...

in the words of mcenroe

YOU CANT BE SERIOUS.

Who was the crybaby that started the whole thing? The dip in chief told one great big lie and expected no one to say anything? WTF over.

the claim that the judiciary is non-political is a bad joke.

the claim that the judiciary is non-political is a bad joke.

-- Shawn

I would lay good money that you have never even met a jurist or had a conversation with them on how they make their decisions (even the ones they personally disagree with). To demonize something you disagree with and do not understand is the bad joke here.

So the Chief Justice is asked a question by a college student, answers it, and is then labeled a crybaby by some wannabe liberal nutjob. Ho hum, another day of liberal idiocy. Don't want the answer, don't ask the question. Obama panders to the left with false information during the yearly political pep rally in front of Congress and Roberts is the one who gets disparaged. Ho hum, another day of liberal lunacy. Democrats can boo George Bush during his yearly speech, but Roberts isn't allowed to answer a question by a student. Ho hum, another day of liberal hypocrisy. Seems to be a trend. Liberalism truly is a mental disorder.

Roberts is the leader of five, put in place by Shrub & his pappy to dismantle our social safety net. That's Robert's job and he is anxious to move on it. Then along comes Obama and even though Roberts can easily outlast him if he wants to, the fly is already in the ointment and his plans are asunder, if only temporarily.

Roberts shouldn't worry about Obama's chatter. The real question is will social unrest prevent his planned permanent changes.

Gee. What a surprise. Rightwingers blame President Obama and leftwingers blame Roberts. Yawn.

Roberts is the leader of five, put in place by Shrub & his pappy to dismantle our social safety net.

#23 | Posted by nutcase

Look again nutsack. He is the leader of 9. Show me where the constitution spells out that we are to have a social safety net, whatever that is. Had the founders thought that was important it would be spelled out very clearly.

"Show me where the constitution spells out that we are to have a social safety net, whatever that is. Had the founders thought that was important it would be spelled out very clearly."

Answering The Snipe would take a dissertation, but in a few words, he seems to believe that as it was in the beginning, is now and shall be forever more defines our constitution. Neither "god" nor the founding fathers envisioned social changes (whatever that is, Snipe) that make religion and laws living, breathing entities

Concern for the less fortunate is a cornerstone of who we are, Snipe. And if you really need more documentation for social safety nets, try the preamble. I think it speaks to the common welfare. herm

I would lay good money that you have never even met a jurist or had a conversation with them on how they make their decisions (even the ones they personally disagree with). To demonize something you disagree with and do not understand is the bad joke here.

----------

first of all: i would bet that you never left your moms house, let alone actually saw how the law actually works in real cases.

2ndly: go fuck yourself.

in the preamble, for christs sake, can't you read?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I'm afraid, for the same reasons Europe was once descending into revolution, Corporations and their equivalent were destroying the lives of laborers. In the US colonies it was the East India Company being protested at the Boston Tea Party. As our revolution succeeded, States were assigned responsibility to police Corporations whose charters could be dissolved without due process, a right granted only to human beings. All that has been turned on end for the sake of greedfuckers, the vaste majority of whom are worthless leaches sitting on inherited wealth.

America Totally SCREWED by a "CORRUPT and TREASONOUS" Supreme Court!!!

SCOTUS is the most "CORRUPT and TREASONOUS" organization in the entire U.S.A. and thats not easy to accomplish!!!

Funny thing is, Having to sit and listen to someone with no chance of interruption, and being forced to show deference...

Is exactly what ANYONE who goes in front of roberts in his court has to put up with. Suck it up, ya pussy.

Funny article. Obama has the thinnest skin of any president in recent memory.

One reason America is getting sick and tired of him already.

22%.

#5 | Posted by rightisright

stay on topic retard..

That said, Roberts is a pansy.

Sorry, not buying it Mr. Judicial Activist. The decission blows. You are not too sacred to hear about it.

#15 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour

The court handed the keys to the political system.. LEGALLY to the red chinese, terrorist and any kook with foreign bucks to buy off the electorate.

The Court politicized themselves when they decided who our 43rd President was going to be on a straight party-line vote.

If that's not the reality, it is certainly the appearance.

Concern for the less fortunate is a cornerstone of who we are, Snipe. And if you really need more documentation for social safety nets, try the preamble. I think it speaks to the common welfare. herm

#26 | Posted by herm

Every person should be given a home, car, boat, airplane, food and drink, clothes, work, trips around the world, long vacations and short workweeks.

Tell me where you draw the line for the common welfare?

That line is different for a lot of people.

The Court politicized themselves when they decided who our 43rd President was going to be on a straight party-line vote.

#33 | Posted by snoofy

Describe how their decision was not according to law.

Describe how their decision was not according to law.

A lay observer simply sees each Supreme Court Justice voting for the party of the President who appointed them.

As for how the decision was not according to law, the language of the Court's opinion attempts to neuter its own precedent value as much as possible. That's highly unusual behavior for the Supreme Court, wouldn't you agree?

So we have a decision along party lines, and a decision that attempts to avoid establishing precedent -- despite the fact that perhaps the most important function of a Supreme Court decision is to establish precedent.

The whole thing stinks. But, things can stink and still be in accord with the law. So perhaps we're talking about two different things here.

when they ordered the recount stopped in violation of the state of floridas rights to hold free selections.

states right asshole!

" The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State's electors to "participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process," as provided in 3 U.S.C. 5. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op. at 27); see also Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434, *13 (Fla. 2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court's order that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed.

Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. 5 Justice Breyer's proposed remedyremanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an "appropriate" order authorized by Fla. Stat. 102.168(8) (2000)."

i.e. we rule that we get to rule anyway.

fail

"Every person should be given a home, car, boat, airplane, food and drink, clothes, work, trips around the world, long vacations and short workweeks.Tell me where you draw the line for the common welfare."

The constitution provides for none of the above, Pet, It does give Congress and the states the right to provide for the common good. Opinions may vary has to how this is achieved, but a level playing field is surely implied. herm

It does give Congress and the states the right to provide for the common good.

No it doesn't.

It grants Congress the authority to promote the general welfare within the context of the limited scope of government it envisioned.

but a level playing field is surely implied

But surely the playing field is not leveled until I, too, have an airplane.

...Every person should be given a home, car, boat, airplane, food and drink, clothes, work, trips around the world, long vacations and short workweeks. Tell me where you draw the line for the common welfare.

So far, so good. Keep going and I'll let you know when to stop.

But surely the playing field is not leveled until I, too, have an airplane.

#42 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao

Do tell? You sold your Gulfstream IV?

BTW, check out John Travolta's Florida pad. Run out the door and hop into the 727 or Citation and run to the store for bread and wine ... in Paris. LOL

i need a place for my plane to land, that's what i need. it's circling.

anyways, about that line: how about above the so-called poverty levels? then food (food stamp increases), and Universal Single Payer Health Care, then nationalize the "energy" companies starting with Exxon, et al; maybe some "living wages" in there somewhere, too. oh, that's right, i'm a libertarian i'm not supposed to believe in minimnum wage laws.

how am i doing? how's that for little pay back, biatches.

where are my "TP'ers" in all this, anyway? and free TP for all TP'ers.

...and free coffee.

...and kite for Jak and new 'puter for RiR.

it's all Bush's fault anyway.

Roberts has done with the supreme court what Bush did to the presidency. He demonstrated to the world that democracy is a figment of our forefathers imagination. By legitimizing the rights of the corporate person he and four other conservative SC justices have opened the door to the complete destruction of the one man one vote concept that is the cornerstone of democracy while at the same time showing the country that our courts can be bought. Bush accomplished the same total disregard for the constitution by using executive powers not given him by the constitution to start a war for the sake of corporate profit.

Obama is absolutely correct in admonishing the court in a state of the union address. Obama knows his chances of re-election are slim to none for facing down the pack of wolves that has literally taken over the peoples vote. When this country is destroyed from within by big money propaganda controlling the vote and we the people no longer have any say at all, it will be too late to try a constitutional amendment to over turn this disastrous decision. If I was young again, I would be seriously considering moving to a socialist country. The opportunity to compete against big business is long since gone in America. Take a look around folks, the middle class of small entrepreneurs is dead. The small town concept of American prosperity has been hijacked by mega-malls. Everywhere I look family businesses are failing, people are forced to live in the streets and banks own half the houses. The only way half the country can get affordable health care and decent housing is to go on welfare or work two full time jobs. Is this the kind of world you 'patriotic republicans' advocate?

#47 | Posted by RingMaster at 2010-03-13 09:24 AM | Reply | Flag: Nail on the Head.

Nice post, Ring!

Be Well.

Ring46,

>> "If I was young again, I would be seriously considering moving to a socialist country.."

Dude,
You're in luck. No need to call the moving van. You've arrived!

JM

Ring,

Haven't your heard? The new Rtard mantra is that the USA in NOT a democracy!!! It is a 'constitutional republic'. Next they will be saying that the bill of rights was just a prank and nobody should pay any attention to that 'just a goddamned piece of paper' constitution thingy.

Republicans from Texas are truly the worst thing to happen to our country. EVER.

Roberts is being a crybaby. If he doesn't like sitting at the State of the Union acting above the fray like a monarch, he can sit at home and cry himself to sleep in his Snuggie.

Funny comment. The article's not about Obama. LOL!

#6 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

I didn't know you had a sense of humor.

A thread about the chief justice answering a lie made by the little o isn't about little o? You area funny guy.

I'm sorry dok, guy = gay.

Haven't your heard? The new Rtard mantra is that the USA in NOT a democracy!!!
* * * *

Nothing new about it, dumbass. It's a democratic republic. If you don't know the difference, pick up one of those new Texas schoolbooks.

It's a democratic republic.

#53 | Posted by rightisright

I don't disagree with that but honest opinion here, do you think that the design of our democratic republic ever intended to let multinational corporations have such influence in our governance, which IS the real issue here?

Republicans from Texas are truly the worst thing to happen to our country. EVER.

#49 | Posted by axe at 2010-03

translation....the worst thing to happen to the progresive agenda and a move into western euro style democratic socialism that is proving such a big hit in places like greece that are now being hit with riots in the streets because the GOVT CHILDREN are having benefits taken away from them

also report this morning on fox news block

ONLY SEVEN PER CENT of Greeks pay for virtually ALL of those benefits....with an extensive black market eonomy

another LOOK into our future...

Nothing new about it, dumbass. It's a democratic republic. If you don't know the difference, pick up one of those new Texas schoolbooks.

You won't find Democratic Republic in there. The right-wingers objected to "Democratic" because there's a Democratic Party in the United States. They've stripped that term out and replaced it with "Constitutional Republic."