RSS Feed MenuOur friend the Washington Insider called to ask: had any president before ever denounced the Supreme Court to their own faces in the way that Barack Obama just did?
I have not yet looked through them all, but a first scan can find no precedent.
Even Franklin Roosevelt in 1937, on the eve of pushing his court-packing plan, was more circumspect.
The judicial branch also is asked by the people to do its part in making democracy successful. We do not ask the courts to call nonexistent powers into being, but we have a right to expect that conceded powers or those legitimately implied shall be made effective instruments for the common good.
The process of our democracy must not be imperiled by the denial of essential powers of free government.
The next year, 1938, Roosevelt was more delicate still.
The Supreme Court delivered a stinging rejection to the Truman administration in the steel seizure case of 1952. Truman had nothing to say about it in his 1953 SOTU.
It looks like here’s another first for Obama: the first president to criticize a specific court decision in a State of the Union address – and certainly to do so in terms that, if not outright untruthful, were certainly misleading.
teabag // Jan 28, 2010 at 9:36 am
Good for him. At least he has the balls to call them out to their faces. The decision was a disgrace for many reasons. The Supreme court should be expanded by at least 3 members. Noting in the constitution says there should be a the number we have.
Nothing misleading either. Foreign owned USA based corporations from China, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela can now have huge influence in the politics of the USA. Is that what Republicans want?
LauraNo // Jan 28, 2010 at 9:58 am
Who cares if there is a precedent?
ProfNickD // Jan 28, 2010 at 10:13 am
Progressives never really believed in free speech — “hate crimes” legislation, “equal time” regulations, advertising restrictions, etc. This is just the latest manifestation of a profound hostility to liberty that has really always been a characteristic of progressivism.
GOProud // Jan 28, 2010 at 10:26 am
David, the answer to your question is the last President to do that stunt was Frankie Roosevelt… and it didn’t turn out too well for him, either.
Obama decries the notion that foreign entities will now be able to influence presidential campaigns by donating cash? Ummm, last time I checked, it was the Democrats under Slick Willy that tried to shake down the ChiComs… it was Al Gore who tried to shake down the Buddhist monks in their monastery… it was Obama who had the campaign finance allegation he was laundering money for the DNC from foreign nationals… and it was Slick Willy –Champion of the Democrats– who built his library, his museum, his foundation from secret donations from foreign leaders, despots and dictators?
Is it surprising that TeaBagged would be the first troll here to appreciate the Chicago Thuggery of Obama in his treatment of SCOTUS? Contemptible and loathingly disgusting… it’s a new low for the Left here. I can hear them applaud Obama –”he’s da’ man!” Disgusting.
Kanzeon // Jan 28, 2010 at 11:13 am
Must be nice to be a Supreme Court Justice. A lifetime appointment and no one – apparently not even the President – can ever criticize you in public, no matter how controversial your decisions, or how much damage you do to the nation.
Danny_K // Jan 28, 2010 at 11:50 am
That would have been funny!
“Why did you guys make me President? You KNEW I couldn’t handle it! It’s all your fault!”
kevin47 // Jan 28, 2010 at 12:22 pm
“Must be nice to be a Supreme Court Justice. A lifetime appointment and no one – apparently not even the President – can ever criticize you in public, no matter how controversial your decisions, or how much damage you do to the nation.”
What the hell are you talking about? People criticize the Supreme Court all the time in public. Literally millions of articles, books and speeches have been devoted to criticism of the court.
The SOTU is one of the few forums, on Earth, where it is inappropriate to do so. The court has no mechanism for public response (though Alito apparently found a loophole), so the whole enterprise boils down to empty demagoguery.
sinz54 // Jan 28, 2010 at 12:24 pm
GOProud: Obama decries the notion that foreign entities will now be able to influence presidential campaigns by donating cash?
He was wrong.
Foreign influence-peddling is already prohibited by other laws, laws which the Supreme Court didn’t rule on.
sdspringy // Jan 28, 2010 at 12:28 pm
The ability no longer exists where any entity can control the message. As the Dems are clearly finding out. They have complete control of the MSM yet are experiencing a drop in approval rating which are historic.
The ability of a Corporation, Union, or political party to control a message through TV is not the power house it once was. Thanks to the internet, bloggers, and the ability of all of us to express our opinions.
GOProud // Jan 28, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Sinz54 offers: “He (Obama) was wrong.” You’re right. And it took a real judge, a real lawyer, a real constitution scholar like Associate Justice Samuel Alito to point that out to the wanna-be lawyer, wanna-be Harvard don President… “No, that’s not true”.
Along with all the openly mocking laughter from the legislators in the Chamber whenever Obama would claim yet another whooper of a lie, Justice Alito can stand in good company. It is important to tell the Emperor he has no clothes… or, in this case, he’s lying.
balconesfault // Jan 28, 2010 at 12:38 pm
ProfNickD: Progressives never really believed in free speech
Actually, the cheers from the right for this ruling show that conservatives never really believed that judicial activism is fundamentally wrong.
Sinz: Foreign influence-peddling is already prohibited by other laws, laws which the Supreme Court didn’t rule on.
Can you point me to the existing law that would prevent a US corporation which has majority foreign ownership from pouring money into elections?
Kanzeon // Jan 28, 2010 at 12:38 pm
kevin47:
“People criticize the Supreme Court all the time in public.”
Fair enough.
” The SOTU is one of the few forums, on Earth, where it is inappropriate to do so.”
Says who? There isn’t any reason that should be so. The Court has done plenty of damage in its long history. Are the justices so fraile that they can’t sit through the President critizing them in the same manner that he criticizes the other co-equal branch?
“The court has no mechanism for public response (though Alito apparently found a loophole), so the whole enterprise boils down to empty demagoguery.”
Nine people with lifetime appointments decide the direction on the nation, and they’re defenseless because they don’t hold press conferences. I don’t really get how stating “your decision sucks” is empty demagoguery, but apparently you have a different view of these nine imperial political hacks than I do.
mpolito // Jan 28, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Remember, balconesfault, liberals and conservatives will never agree about “judicial activism,” because very few liberals embrace the phrase (although a significant number do endorse it and defend it). Liberals and conservatives disagree about which specific court decisions constitute “judicial activism” and so will never agree that the other side is not committed to judical activism. However, the left is the side that shamelessly quotes international law and believes in a “living Constitution” in a way that the right simply does not.
balconesfault // Jan 28, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Remember, balconesfault, liberals and conservatives will never agree about “judicial activism,” because very few liberals embrace the phrase (although a significant number do endorse it and defend it).
Most liberal legal sorts I’ve read/met seem to consider the phrase “judicial activism” simply a term to describe decisions that conservatives don’t like.
We’ve already seen a number of cases by this court, powered by the conservative majority, that would meet any rigorous definition set for for “judicial activism”. And if it can’t pass a rigorous definition test, it’s a slogan, not a principle.
BoolaBoola // Jan 28, 2010 at 3:41 pm
It doesn’t matter WHO calls out the Supremes–Bush, Obama, who cares? What matters is whether the Supremes DESERVE to be called out.
kevin47 // Jan 28, 2010 at 4:32 pm
“Says who? There isn’t any reason that should be so.”
Personally, I don’t want a situation where the judicial and executive branches are lashing out at each other, for the reason that the executive plays a role in appointing the judiciary. If the judiciary exists simply to espouse and defend the executive’s policy decisions, then it shouldn’t exist.
Conventional Folly » Alito’s Partisanship // Jan 28, 2010 at 5:24 pm
[...] me see if I understand Andrew correctly: President Obama engages in an unprecedented attack on the judiciary, botches the facts of the case at hand (or willfully distorts them for partisan [...]
Kanzeon // Jan 28, 2010 at 6:49 pm
kevin47:
“Personally, I don’t want a situation where the judicial and executive branches are lashing out at each other, for the reason that the executive plays a role in appointing the judiciary.”
Let’s see. The Supreme Court can strike down executive orders, rule on things like the Nixon tapes or the Lewinski scandal and the Supreme Court Chief Justice can proceed over impeachments, and the Supreme Court can strike down laws of Congress, which are usually signed by the President, so, basically the Supreme Court can walk all over the other two branches of government – but “personally” you are worried about the executive lashing out at the royal court….because the executive appoints them?
If Obama calls Sam Alito an asshole, how does that affect in any way the process of future appointments?
They have a job for life. They can do whatever they please, and they never have to face voters or be removed by either of their co-equal branches. I think a little lashing out is a good thing.
cporet // Jan 28, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Bush would never “call them out”, after all they installed him.
kevin47 // Jan 28, 2010 at 11:33 pm
“Let’s see. The Supreme Court can strike down executive orders,”
That’s my point.
“rule on things like the Nixon tapes or the Lewinski scandal”
They can rule on anything. It’s not whether they can rule, but how.
“and the Supreme Court Chief Justice can proceed over impeachments,”
I’ll assume you meant “preside” over “proceed”. Still, I fail to see how a president speaking out at SOTU benefits the process.
” and the Supreme Court can strike down laws of Congress, which are usually signed by the President, so, basically the Supreme Court can walk all over the other two branches of government ”
Any branch of government can walk all over the other, and each has been given the boots to do so. That’s the magic of the set of checks and balances the Constitution put into place.
“but “personally” you are worried about the executive lashing out at the royal court”
Royal court?
“….because the executive appoints them?
Yes, that is precisely why. The purpose of judicial appointments should not be the appeasement of the executive.
“If Obama calls Sam Alito an asshole, how does that affect in any way the process of future appointments?”
It makes a very liberal appointment more viable. Else, why would he take up time in his SOTU speech to contend with the issue?
“They have a job for life.”
The future appointments do not have a job for life.
“They can do whatever they please, and they never have to face voters or be removed by either of their co-equal branches.”
This isn’t true. They can be impeached.
I think a little lashing out is a good thing.”
Kanzeon // Jan 29, 2010 at 12:06 am
kevin47:
“It makes a very liberal appointment more viable.”
I can’t make any sense of that comment. If he criticizes the court in the SOTU, somehow a liberal appointment is more viable? So what?
“The purpose of judicial appointments should not be the appeasement of the executive. ”
I have no idea what you mean by this, either. If the executive makes the appointment, then one purpose of the appointment is the pleasure of the executive.
These are nine political hacks. There are many good, fair decent judges on the courts, who honestly strive to do justice. To attain the level of Supreme Court Justice, one needs to be a political animal. A few have had geniune independence, but largely they are tools of the political parties – that goes for both the liberals and conservatives. They are no more apolitical or above the fray or devoted to the rule of law than Newt Gingrich or Bill Clinton.
Currently, we have a long string of 5-4 decisions, which basically reflects a political divide, not a divide of legal philosophy. If Obama appoints a couple justices, we will have a long string of 5-4 decisions serving the Democrats, rather than the Republicans.
The Court is far too insulated from open criticism, and is given respect it does not earn. They are American royalty. I think we’d be better off if that farce ended, and they were treated as what they are – partisan actors, on the same level as every other politician.
kevin47 // Jan 30, 2010 at 2:49 am
“I can’t make any sense of that comment. If he criticizes the court in the SOTU, somehow a liberal appointment is more viable?”
Right, he can make the case that we need a shift in the court in order to preserve our right not to be run by foreign corporations.
“So what?”
I’m just explaining why he does it. He didn’t include it in his SOTU speech without considering the political implications. This wasn’t a “Boston cops are stupid” moment.
Debating Obama’s Supreme Court Diss | FrumForum // Mar 12, 2010 at 5:12 pm
[...] morning, I tweeted a link to a blogpost here on the Supreme Court. Has a president ever before so specifically criticized a Supreme Court [...]