March 10, 2010

Chief Justice troubled by checks and balances

[The President] shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union ...
"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 to the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling," John Roberts said.
And of the image of five unaccountable, life-tenured judges reversing decades of precedent and public policy promulgated by the elective branches aimed at maintaining some semblance of a level playing field for political participation among U.S. citizens, what.

Similar acts are usually what the Robertsonians are troubled about.

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." — Jefferson reacts to Marbury v. Madison

3 comments:

Thomas Joseph said...

I don't agree with the Supreme Court decision that essentially put campaign finance reform back at square one.

However, I am sick and tired of the Executive and Legislative branches doing nothing but preening for the cameras and vomiting up sound bytes constantly. IMO, Obama should have stuck with tradition and not criticized the court in his State of the Union address, and left his admonishments for another time. The Supreme Court aren't children who need to be reprimanded publicly.

illusory tenant said...

I agree it was a needlessly confrontational political calculation on Obama's part. It guaranteed him a burst of applause but a burst of applause from his same constituency that is growing skeptical of his ability to actually deliver on their policy preferences.

illusory tenant said...

Pete Gruett said...

So it was untoward of the President to effectively quote a dissenting opinion at the SOTU (and presumably perfectly appropriate for Alito to smarmily mouth his retort).

The response of the sitting Chief Justice is to go bash the President in a public speach? Perhaps I'm a cynic but part of me suspects that Roberts wasn't so much appalled at the provocation as eager for the excuse.

2:22 PM, March 10, 2010