Chief Justice Roberts--refers to State of the Union address as a pep rally.

[oreo]

If you watched the State of the Union address. All 9 Supreme court justices were there--getting chided by Barack Obama over a ruling on McCain/Feingold. Members of congress were cheering on Obama while the justices were silent--with the expection of one justice "mouthing" the words -- "not true."

Here is John Roberts stating that they do not see any need in attending State of the Union addresse's because they have become nothing more than a political pep rally.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARV_eHsyaHo]YouTube - Chief Justice Roberts Remarks on State of the Union[/ame]

 

[Claudette]

Yes. I saw it. Very tacky indeed.

The Prez was wrong to boot. You'd think someone who was a law professor would indeed know the law.

Oh well. If I were the Supreme Court it would be a cold day in hell before I attended another SOTU address. 9 empty chairs should look quite good doncha thinnk???

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I don't believe that Thomas attended, he's the Woody Allen George C Scott of SCOTUS

 

[Stephanie]

That was one of the ugliest State of the Unions I have ever seen.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That was one of the ugliest State of the Unions I have ever seen.

What did you expect, its not like Obama is a real President

 

[bodecea]

He's right. There is no need or requirement for them to attend.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I wish Justice Roberts was the President and Obama was selling watermelons on the side of the road in Texas.

 

[uscitizen]

The State of the union speech is and has long been a political pep rally.
so there will be no need for Roberts to attend when a republican is president either.

 

[hjmick]

It will be interesting to see how many show up next year. I believe only six attended this last one.

 

[beowolfe]

Yes. I saw it. Very tacky indeed.

The Prez was wrong to boot. You'd think someone who was a law professor would indeed know the law.

Oh well. If I were the Supreme Court it would be a cold day in hell before I attended another SOTU address. 9 empty chairs should look quite good doncha thinnk???

You meant that constitutionally require SOTU? And what law do you think the POTUS doesn't know? If you're referring to the SCOTUS decision that he was talking about in the SOTU, you should read up on the decision and what Roberts told the other justices about the notion that their decision would allow foreign American incorporated corporations to pay for ads direrctly from their treasury.

 

[Dutch]

Yea the republicans are never openly critical of a Supreme Court ruling.

 

[hjmick]

Yea the republicans are never openly critical of a Supreme Court ruling.

Criticism delivered in the State of the Union address?

 

[uscitizen]

Yea the republicans are never openly critical of a Supreme Court ruling.

Criticism delivered in the State of the Union address?

Criticism has never before been included in the SOTU?

 

[hjmick]

Yea the republicans are never openly critical of a Supreme Court ruling.

Criticism delivered in the State of the Union address?

Criticism has never before been included in the SOTU?

I'm asking, how many Presidents have criticized the Supreme Court in their State of the Union address?

 

[Dutch]

Yea the republicans are never openly critical of a Supreme Court ruling.

Criticism delivered in the State of the Union address?

January 25th, 1988, Reagans State of the Union Adress. That was too easy. Google Reagan, State of The Union, abortion.

 

[hjmick]

Yea the republicans are never openly critical of a Supreme Court ruling.

Criticism delivered in the State of the Union address?

January 25th, 1988, Reagans State of the Union Adress. That was too easy. Google Reagan, State of The Union, abortion.

And Roosevelt. So, in all this time only three Presidents have criticized SCOTUS in their State of the Union address. According to The American Presidency Project, SCOTUS has been mentioned, in some form or another, only seventeen times in State of the Union addresses.

I'm not saying that SCOTUS is above criticism, nor am I saying that the President shouldn't voice his concerns regarding a SCOTUS decision, hell, I'm not even saying he can't or shouldn't do it during his State of the Union. But I am saying, in my opinion it is bad form, no matter who the President may be...

Roosevelt, Reagan, or Obama.

 

[uscitizen]

Did the other supremes whine and carry on when criticised?

 

[hjmick]

Did the other supremes whine and carry on when criticised?

Interesting question. My guess is they did, but the press wasn't quite as omnipresent as we see today.

 

[WillowTree]

Yea the republicans are never openly critical of a Supreme Court ruling.

hey asswipe. pay attention. Roberts says dissent is fine. But, asswipe, here's the rub, in the SOTUA with all the lunatics jumping to their feet hootin n a hollerin is not so fine.. need some notepaper?

 

[beowolfe]

Criticism delivered in the State of the Union address?

January 25th, 1988, Reagans State of the Union Adress. That was too easy. Google Reagan, State of The Union, abortion.

And Roosevelt. So, in all this time only three Presidents have criticized SCOTUS in their State of the Union address. According to The American Presidency Project, SCOTUS has been mentioned, in some form or another, only seventeen times in State of the Union addresses.

I'm not saying that SCOTUS is above criticism, nor am I saying that the President shouldn't voice his concerns regarding a SCOTUS decision, hell, I'm not even saying he can't or shouldn't do it during his State of the Union. But I am saying, in my opinion it is bad form, no matter who the President may be...

Roosevelt, Reagan, or Obama.

Isn't a SOTU address supposed to give us the POTUS' view of the state of the union? Should (bad or good) form dictate that information be omitted?