From the State of the Union Speech:
The Supreme Court reversed a century of law [in Citizens United v. FEC] to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign companies -- to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities.
I cannot recall another President--at least in my lifetime--taking a more direct shot at the Supreme Court while in the Justices' presence. Thoughts?
From the State of the Union Speech:
Stupid, really... This decision was taken out of context
ReplyDeleteThe reference to the decision or the significance of the decision looking forward? What is out of context?
ReplyDeleteYou forgot the "With all due respect to Sep of Powers" ... mega pwn
ReplyDeletePretty inappropriate if you ask me. They can't respond... not really fair.
ReplyDeleteThat takes balls. Did anyone see Alito shaking his head?
ReplyDeleteThey looked really upset...hahahaha
ReplyDeleteAlito did shake his head....advisory opinion?
ReplyDeletegood for him! They should be criticized the same as any other decision-making body. They're not immune to criticism just because they wear robes or because they use words like "oyez," etc.
ReplyDeleteAlito shook his head and said, "Not true." Not sure which part he was referring to. But the court-packing deal in the 1930s had to be more acrimonious even if not directly in the presence of the justices.
ReplyDeleteyes the supreme court should and can be criticised, but it ought not to be done during the state of the union address. The supreme court justices are his guests and i beleive that they ought to be treated as guests. Rebuking a guest without the opportunity of response is unbecoming. the president ought to be above what occured. especiially since he just lecutred the republicans on changing the way business is done in washington.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0110/Justice_Alitos_You_lie_moment.html
ReplyDeleteSince when is it inappropriate for POTUS to express his opinion of a case? Isn't that part of the separation of powers? POTUS gets a bully pulpit--he used it. What's the big deal?
ReplyDeleteA "century" of law? Isn't Austin only 20 years old? And didn't Austin itself go against established precedent?
ReplyDeleteHe should've run a comparative analysis before rushing to the decision.
ReplyDelete1. SCOTUS doesn't get to respond, they get to make decisions about cases. POTUS and COTUS respond.
ReplyDelete2. Completely reasonable to attack the decision on policy grounds. I say that if this is what the First Amendment requires, we need to amend the Amendment.
3. This was an activist decision that interferes with the working of our democratic system.
4. While Austin is 20 years old, the principal of getting corporations out of elections is 100 years old, and as SCOTUSblog reports, many believe that Citizens United calls into question other aspects of campaign finance law as well.
5. Several seem to think it is insulting to criticize SCOTUS on national television -- but criticism of the court is one of the only tools we have to make known our democratic displeasure. We have a long history, in this country, of criticizing Court decisions, a tradition rooted in the strong dissents that originate at the court.
6. A political court -- which regularly decides issues on party lines -- should expect to be part of the political debate.
Good points, Josh. Glad to see you around these parts.
ReplyDelete