Chief Justice Roberts: Obama’s SOTU knock on the Supreme Court “very troubling”; Update: Gibbs responds
posted at 8:58 pm on March 9, 2010 by Allahpundit
Tough stuff. Although it was kind of him not to remind the student audience that Obama’s a liar, too.
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Obama’s State of the Union address was “very troubling” and the annual speech has “degenerated to a political pep rally.”…
Responding to a University of Alabama law student’s question, Roberts said anyone was free to criticize the court, and some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.
“So I have no problems with that,” he said. “On the other hand, there 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.”
“I’m not sure why we’re there,” he added, which I assume we can read as his personal flipping o’ the bird in reply to next year’s invite. As for Obama’s Court-bashing, don’t expect that to stop with the SOTU: Public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side regarding the Citizens United decision. Which brings the total number of issues these days on which the public is overwhelmingly on his side to, I guess, one. Exit question: Safe to assume that only the liberal justices will be at the state of the union next year? Or will smilin’ Anthony Kennedy once again answer the bell for the left?
Watch CBS News Videos Online
Update: Surely you weren’t expecting an apology from this tool.
Asked for comment, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said, “What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections – drowning out the voices of average Americans.”
Gibbs continued, saying, “the President has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Good for Roberts.
Hussein is despicable.
artist on March 9, 2010 at 9:01 PM
Has to be hard to sit and not betray any emotion or reaction.
Rightwingguy on March 9, 2010 at 9:02 PM
Barry is the light beer of politics.
R Square on March 9, 2010 at 9:04 PM
Roberts is a class act! POTUS not so much!
shov74 on March 9, 2010 at 9:05 PM
Wasn’t there a SOTU speech that Clinton gave after he was impeeched that the Justices just couldn’t find time to attend…?
Seven Percent Solution on March 9, 2010 at 9:05 PM
I am betting that if people really understood the ruling, they would not be on 0bama’s side.
PrincipledPilgrim on March 9, 2010 at 9:05 PM
More like O’douls, R. square. He has Nada,zip,bupkiss other than foam
bbz123 on March 9, 2010 at 9:06 PM
Eh, I’m not so sure those polls are doing a good job of measuring… and I think if he tries to push it hard people will just shrug…
ninjapirate on March 9, 2010 at 9:06 PM
Roberts is right.
Obama just loves to score cheap, political points on the Perpetual Presidential Campaign tour.
Gothguy on March 9, 2010 at 9:07 PM
The greatest image—we did not see—would have been Justice Roberts and the entire Supreme Court breaking protocol by standing up and walking out on the jackass.
Rovin on March 9, 2010 at 9:08 PM
Good point about the State of the Union…it\’s turned into a campaign rally.
Johnson on March 9, 2010 at 9:08 PM
I can’t wait until we get to cheer and holler when BHO leaves the White House.
d1carter on March 9, 2010 at 9:08 PM
I agree. They would also have to understand the way money is currently is funnelled through 527s though, and not everyone has that level of interest.
disa on March 9, 2010 at 9:09 PM
He’s the Billy Beer of politics.
Claypigeon on March 9, 2010 at 9:09 PM
How much would you pay to see Obama and Roberts debate the finer points of constitutional law?
Daveyardbird on March 9, 2010 at 9:09 PM
SMART Power!!!!!!!!!1111111111111!!!!!111eleventy
The Supreme Court acted stupidly.
jukin on March 9, 2010 at 9:09 PM
Wouldn’t you just pay to see a debate between Justice Roberts and Obowma over Constitutional Law…?
Seven Percent Solution on March 9, 2010 at 9:09 PM
Great minds…
Seven Percent Solution on March 9, 2010 at 9:10 PM
I thought he retired…
Joe Caps on March 9, 2010 at 9:10 PM
Obama would be wise to direct his future attacks to soft targets and straw men.
Stickeehands on March 9, 2010 at 9:11 PM
Obama’s side? Baloney. How was the question framed?
I continue to admire the Chief Justice.
publiuspen on March 9, 2010 at 9:11 PM
“Roberts is a class act! POTUS not so much!”
shov74 on March 9, 2010 at 9:05 PM
Without question!
GFW on March 9, 2010 at 9:11 PM
I wouldn’t even call that a debate. More like the most epic pwning in history.
KSgop on March 9, 2010 at 9:11 PM
I can’t wait until we get to cheer and holler when BHO leaves the White House.
d1carter on March 9, 2010 at 9:08 PM
I’m holding off until all the Sharpton graffiti is removed from the Lincoln Bedroom.
artist on March 9, 2010 at 9:11 PM
Rumor has it that Justice Roberts likes to fish…
Seven Percent Solution on March 9, 2010 at 9:12 PM
Maybe the Chairman will fire justice Roberts….HAHAHAHAHAHA
Dick Turpin on March 9, 2010 at 9:13 PM
I would love it if the Chief Justice Roberts came to the next SOTU, and took his seat, and then when the Seargent at Arms announces the President of the United States, he got up and calmly walked out the door without a word.
Haiku Guy on March 9, 2010 at 9:14 PM
Ahh…but look at the head on it…so thick you can…chew it.
TheVer on March 9, 2010 at 9:15 PM
I guess it is pretty bad when one branch of the government can count their only public support behind the decision of another branch of government, rather than their own.
ted c on March 9, 2010 at 9:15 PM
Good for Roberts and I hope the entire court shows some solidarity and NONE show up next year. That would really flip the bird to Barry.
GarandFan on March 9, 2010 at 9:15 PM
SCOTUS czar appointed in 3…2…1…
ted c on March 9, 2010 at 9:16 PM
I hadn’t noticed before, but in the screencap for that video he’s sitting in front of Sotomayor.
I wish he’d be more careful about letting her at his back. I don’t trust her enough to keep from finding some revisionist “the Constitution means what I want it to this week” excuse to put a shiv in him.
cthulhu on March 9, 2010 at 9:16 PM
Coutdown to Roberts being smeared in the NYTimes and WP
in 3…2….1
Other than that it’s a bit unseemly for Roberts to be partisan in this manner.
He is not supposed to be political.
harry on March 9, 2010 at 9:18 PM
I said at the time that I don’t know why the SCOTUS needs to be used as a prop for the SOTU speech at all. Especially when the speaker will not observe basic decorum and be polite.
I don’t believe that the SCOTUS turn out will be as strong next year. Robert is right, it is a political “pep rally” for the POTUS and his side of the congress.
The Judiciary branch is not constitutionally required to be there. They are not even involved in the constitutional transaction (except maybe as witnesses). Next year, they should just ask to be cc’d with a written copy of the speech.
Michael K. on March 9, 2010 at 9:18 PM
Ah, I knew there was a reason I liked Chief Justice Roberts. Stick in the Shiny One’s face!
Shogun144 on March 9, 2010 at 9:18 PM
Roberts pretty much did that to the Dems at his nomination hearing. Teddy or one of the other Dems would drone out a question that their staff had written out for them. Roberts would answer it without needing to check any notes (can’t recall if he even brought any), adding some insights, references to several other precedents…And then the Dem would go “Uh….” and read the next question on the list.
There was an editorial cartoon of Roberts sitting on a stool in a nursery school reading a big book “The Story of the Constitution” and a bunch of rugrats, clearly identifiable as Teddy et al, sitting around on the floor in playclothes.
Wethal on March 9, 2010 at 9:19 PM
The decision has been widely and wildly misrepresented by the media. The people are offering their opinion not on the the decision but on the media’s twisted distillation: that it was a ruling permitting unlimited foreign corporate donations. It wasn’t. Nothing underscores the socially destructive nature and astounding contempt for America of the modern media than its misreporting of court cases — which even more than most stories require careful, learned, responsible treatment.
rrpjr on March 9, 2010 at 9:19 PM
Roberts won’t obviously attend another Ramalamadingdong speech and will obviously not be retiring while ramalama is still in the seat that should be occupied by a far better man.
So no worries here, maybe Roberts will find an appeal he likes dealing with that stupid fish and help shut down the EPA and protection act dead.
One can dream.
JP1986UM on March 9, 2010 at 9:20 PM
Jeb Bush for President.
Highplains on March 9, 2010 at 9:20 PM
SCOTUS comes as a courtesy. The courtesy was not returned.
And if you looked closely, Schumer and Durbin knew it was coming, as they stood up slightly and leaned over before Obama launched in. It was planned to lean over and clap and cheer in SCOTUS’ faces.
Wethal on March 9, 2010 at 9:20 PM
Obama’s knows as much about constitutional law as my son’s dog, Murphy. Obama’s college resume is a work of fiction.
I am entitled to state at least one unsubstantiated opinion per day.
Pelayo on March 9, 2010 at 9:21 PM
That’s my fantasy.
SouthernGent on March 9, 2010 at 9:22 PM
Hey Gibbs! 68% of those “average” American’s would like to have a word with you about Obamacare. You tool.
Weight of Glory on March 9, 2010 at 9:22 PM
Thank you, Justice Roberts! It was apalling to watch.
Rham to show up in SCOTUS gym showers in 3, 2, 1….
TN Mom on March 9, 2010 at 9:23 PM
The Gibbs response in the HA update adds some substance to my opinion.
Pelayo on March 9, 2010 at 9:23 PM
he said with a contorted face and barely suppressed laughter in his voice.
Cindy Munford on March 9, 2010 at 9:25 PM
So the head of the SEIU having his own apartment in the White House is just a fluke…?
Seven Percent Solution on March 9, 2010 at 9:26 PM
FIFY Gibbsy.
Free o charge
ted c on March 9, 2010 at 9:26 PM
Thank God for Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and, yes, Kennedy. The only glue we got holding our Republic together right now.
Pray for their health and personal security. Emphasis on the latter.
It’s knee-time.
TXUS on March 9, 2010 at 9:26 PM
For the cultural weaklings who cannot bring themselves to laugh out loud at O’Baahma, and the odd Chamberlain-esque RINO jackass, a stunning comparison of our pot-smoking, crack-piping, panama hat wearing, affirmative action Marxist ass-clown of a President, and his intellectual Lord and Master:
For his part, Barry was getting stoned. Hey, but he’s a “Constitutional Law Professor” (retch) and a brilliant orator.
And not qualified to bring this guy coffee, to coin a phrase.
Jaibones on March 9, 2010 at 9:26 PM
“What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections – drowning out the voices of our Union thugs and liberal media lap dogs”
FIFY
windansea on March 9, 2010 at 9:27 PM
Chief Justice John Roberts.
Thank you, President Bush.
ted c on March 9, 2010 at 9:27 PM
“the President has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government.
Yeah, that’s why Obama has his big-donor green energy guys as policy advisors.
MayBee on March 9, 2010 at 9:28 PM
Hey Gibbs: How much money did/does SEIU donate to Dems? Did ACORN support any GOP candidates? How much money did Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac contribute to Obama? Why does Obama refuse to let us see his 2008 donor list?
TN Mom on March 9, 2010 at 9:28 PM
Good luck with that, Gibbsy.
Dork.
Bruno Strozek on March 9, 2010 at 9:29 PM
What he said was not partisan or political. It was a matter of fact. The President acted stupidly. The only way you can feel otherwise is if you are ignorant about the case (like most of America is) or a lefty.
uknowmorethanme on March 9, 2010 at 9:31 PM
It could have been worse, Chief Justice Roberts; High Priest Emperor Obama and his congressional congregation of morons and psychopaths could have put you, Alito, Scalia and Thomas in chains and dunked you all in the congressional swimming pool to see if any of you floated.
MB4 on March 9, 2010 at 9:31 PM
I don’t get why the majority of individuals are against companies donating money……I just don’t get it.
deidre on March 9, 2010 at 9:32 PM
Maybe someone should ask Gibbs if Obama plans to do something about people using credit cards to max out ($2,300)campaign contributions to presidential candidates……and then never paying the balance on the credit card.
Yeah, I went to Huffington Post more than a year ago and read where people in my city, many of the unemployed, were maxing out contributions to Obama.
How many millions did Barry collect this way? How many millions did the taxpayer have to subsidize in Obama contributions?
Barry? Gibbs?
David2.0 on March 9, 2010 at 9:32 PM
Gibbs must do botox also otherwise how does he keep a straight face when he says the above. The won, well the won in just a liar.
chemman on March 9, 2010 at 9:34 PM
Thank all that’s right that we got Roberts and Alito.
WisCon on March 9, 2010 at 9:35 PM
Yeah! It’s not like ACORN or the new black panthers were trying to silence dissent. They were simply guiding folks to vote the right way…which is to vote….left.
Is he kidding? Was he actually able to say this with a straight face? My God, just when I didn’t think they could be more arrogant, they prove me wrong.
capejasmine on March 9, 2010 at 9:35 PM
Obama simply is a jerk. He has no decorum and no sense of American tradition, as shown by today’s fishing idiocy.
GaltBlvnAtty on March 9, 2010 at 9:35 PM
A TXUS-SIZED + 1
Rovin on March 9, 2010 at 9:36 PM
At the risk of driving up the comment count, I will make the obvious point. It’s a little late in the game for Roberts to start quibbling over constitutional considerations when it comes the self-described “…I-was-born-a-British-citizen…” Obama.
NightmareOnKStreet on March 9, 2010 at 9:36 PM
Exactly. Where is their outrage, when some of these large corporations were donating large sums to Obama. Or all those small incremental donations were coming in, and no one knew from where….and when it was discovered….nothing was done about it.
capejasmine on March 9, 2010 at 9:36 PM
That’s why Obama turned off the credit card verification on his website – so no one could trace campaign contributions from Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck and all the other fronts for Soros and foreign donors.
Wethal on March 9, 2010 at 9:37 PM
Hey Gibbsy…You Tool!!! Don’t you get it. Free speech is free speech..Write any law you want, if it goes against the ruling of he court it is unconstitutional. Therefore you can’t have a legislative response. The only response now is a Constitutional amendment. Let me know how that works out for you.
Rndguy on March 9, 2010 at 9:38 PM
I will be curious to see what the SCOTUS will do with those Phelps’ followers given SCOTUS’ present view of the first amendment–in particular the dissenters in Citizens United who apparently have no problem with censorship.
guido911 on March 9, 2010 at 9:38 PM
They lost the high ground on this issue even before he won election.
stldave on March 9, 2010 at 9:39 PM
Judge Roberts is as fine an example of “judicial temperment” as I’ve seen. He believes that there is such a thing as a body of law and that it stands foursquare on our Constitution as a foundation, and that a decision against the devil in “Satan v. Mom & Apple Pie” would be a cancer in that body if unsupported by the merits of the case. I hope that his current (relative) youth means that he is still healthy and on the court when life extension gives him another century to work.
His appointment may have been W’s finest hour.
cthulhu on March 9, 2010 at 9:40 PM
LOLOLOL. IOW, he’s done diddly-squat.
Dusty on March 9, 2010 at 9:40 PM
The One, he is a bast*rd ya know.
RalphyBoy on March 9, 2010 at 9:40 PM
Hahahahahahahaha!! And the bastard said it with a straight face! They don’t call him BAGHDAD BOB for nothing!
GarandFan on March 9, 2010 at 9:40 PM
Gibbs: “Morbidly obese people shouldn’t be allowed to buy political advertising either. They’re disgusting.”
RBMN on March 9, 2010 at 9:41 PM
Why is that woman behind the justices wearing a suitcoat and tie?
Bishop on March 9, 2010 at 9:41 PM
I had heard about these comments by Chief Justice Roberts earlier, on tv. Before reading this thread. I got to thinking it over, and came to wonder……..
Does it not seem like Obama is trying to create friction in Congress, and within the courts, and trying to garner public support to his way of thinking, and poison some, or most of us to Congress, and the Supremes?
Destroy both of these entities, and what we’d have left is the President. Simple, basic, and easy. Get rid of the 2, and let him just make it easier to make changes….of course changes for the ummmmm ummmmm better. *hack* Cough* gag* cough* hack*.
capejasmine on March 9, 2010 at 9:42 PM
LOL… I wonder if Gibbs realizes he is about 9 months pregnant?
upinak on March 9, 2010 at 9:42 PM
I thought we had this out– the poll mistaked the decision.
And this all-American hero campaigned in Berlin and Israel, so once again, YOU LIE!!!
Chris_Balsz on March 9, 2010 at 9:42 PM
Dear Mr. Gibbs,
Please stop telling people you grew up in Auburn. Please stop trying to validate your existence by claiming ties to us. You’re a liar, a coward, and an embarrassment to the male gender.
Go be a bama fan.
AubieJon on March 9, 2010 at 9:42 PM
I hate Obama. This is significant for me for I have managed to get through life so far with relatively little true hate for others. Look, my Grandma taught me not to hate others. I grew up that way. I could “dislike” others, but not “hate” them was the rule.
At least on an individual basis my hate has been limited.
I do hate injustice. I do hate evil historical figures such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. I do hate terrorists.
But I can say Obama is the first US president that I have ever despised or hated in my adult life.
Forgive the rambling nature of this comment, but the point is it usually takes a lot for me to hate, and I do hate and despise Obama for what he doing to our country.
He has drawn my ire.
I wish we could vote him out now by national referendum.
We will have to put up with three more years of this fool. Suffer the fool for three more years. It is hard to imagine the years to come.
Our country is a Federal Democratic Republic, not a socialist state.
Obama does not belong here, but rather Eurabia for example.
Sorry, Grandma, but I hate Obama.
Thing is, so does she (at 88 years old).
Sherman1864 on March 9, 2010 at 9:43 PM
Poll on this issue?
Seriously…..were have people heard the real story behind the case and the implications or are they just filing this in the…………..”I’m just going to listen to Katie Couric on this one or read the headline in the editorial page of the paper and let this decide for me“………. memory hole?
I’m guessing if you frame the poll question in a way that lets’ people know that Unions (SEIU, NEA, etc.) have been pouring tens of millions into the mix for RADICAL LEFTIST policies you might get a tad different response.
Besides the court will refine the decision if there appears to be too much corp influence after the decision.
What they got at the SOTU was Rahm poking Massa in the chest in the shower…..only it was BHO poking the court in public….trying to shame them into going along next big case (primarily aimed at SHAMING KENNEDY at his next Georgetown cocktail party).
PappyD61 on March 9, 2010 at 9:44 PM
With his childish and inaccurate jab at SCOTUS, Ojesus once again thumbs his nose at our Constitution, the document he calls “flawed” because it doesn’t include a list of entitlements that the government must provide and does include strong protections for the people FROM the government and its undue use of coercive power against its citizens.
How in the name of all that is good did we end up with such an unprincipled jackass in the White House?
Good for you, Judge Roberts. The Jug-eared One wouldn’t know decorum from shaving cream.
At the very least, he could find a mouthpiece that doesn’t turn one’s stomach every time he opens his pie-hole.
We’ve got to put a legislative leash on this fool in November, before what’s left of our Republic is permanently damaged, if it isn’t too late already.
hillbillyjim on March 9, 2010 at 9:44 PM
I’d prefer it if in the middle of Ogabe’s speech, he got up, yelled “F**K YOU B***H!”, lifted his robe, mooned Obama, gave him the middle finger and THEN left.
Darth Executor on March 9, 2010 at 9:45 PM
Obama can’t hear the voices of Americans now, why worry about them being drowned out.
And Obama is going to reduce the influence of lobbyists. Ahahahahaha…..
Seriously, how does Gibbs get up an go to work each day knowing how he has to sell his soul for The One?
Mallard T. Drake on March 9, 2010 at 9:46 PM
Yep. It should be canceled. Have the president present his speech in letter form (just like Washington did), and let it actually be on the state of the union instead of a legislative wish-list or attack on the opposing party.
David Shane on March 9, 2010 at 9:47 PM
I need to get right with the Lord. It’s not good for me to be carrying around so much unbridled hatred for Hussein.
IronDioPriest on March 9, 2010 at 9:47 PM
Roberts totally pawned constitutional law guest lecturer Barry Soetoro! Sweeeeeet. Can’t wait to see BS implode on live television.
BHO Jonestown on March 9, 2010 at 9:47 PM
Bing.
Jaibones on March 9, 2010 at 9:47 PM
I regret that I have but two middle fingers to flash at my president.
turfmann on March 9, 2010 at 9:48 PM
Wow. Political jabs from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Absolutely bone-chilling.
crr6 on March 9, 2010 at 9:48 PM
Does someone have a link to this protocol requirement of which he speaks? I’d like to think of our judiciary as being free to be the most outspoken of our branches when a challenge should be made, not the most expressionless.
Buddahpundit on March 9, 2010 at 9:48 PM
What did he say that was political?
Notorious GOP on March 9, 2010 at 9:49 PM
Sherman1864: Agree exactly with your sentiments. Was taught in the 8th grade in Alabama about “or being hated, don’t give way to hating,” but Obama puts that to the test.
GaltBlvnAtty on March 9, 2010 at 9:50 PM
Clinton was vulgar (renting out the Lincoln Bedroom, for example, not to mention activities in the Oval Office with interns), but he at least was smart enough to observe protocol in public.
Wethal on March 9, 2010 at 9:50 PM
Although conservative-liberal mix of SCOTUS concerns, the thing I like about the current court is that the lion’s share of the intellectual horsepower lies on the conservative side. The liberal side can’t compete with Scalia, Roberts, and Alito. Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and…Sotomayor. Puh-leeze.
Stay healthy, conservatives. And let’s get a Republican in the WH in 2012.
BuckeyeSam on March 9, 2010 at 9:50 PM
Eww! Someone picked a scab and pus came out.
AubieJon on March 9, 2010 at 9:51 PM
Nah. It’s not the Chief Justice causing your bones to chill. It’s your selling your soul, for entitlements that’s causing it.
capejasmine on March 9, 2010 at 9:52 PM
Fixed it for ya, Gibbsie, you smarmy shit.
hillbillyjim on March 9, 2010 at 9:52 PM
She’s gay…?
Seven Percent Solution on March 9, 2010 at 9:53 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »