The White House Is Political, So Is The SCOTUS

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:51:25 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Jan Crawford writes:

For the life of me, I just don't get why the White House continues to try to pick a fight with the Supreme Court. [. . . A]fter Chief Justice John Roberts made some entirely reasonable remarks yesterday -- and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs just had to respond [. . .]

Leave aside the misstatements in Crawford's piece (it was not the first time a President has criticized a SCOTUS decision in the SOTU and Roberts DID criticize Obama's choice to criticize the Citizen's United in the SOTU (Obama had criticized it before)), the political calculation for the White House is obvious -- Dems will run against Citizens United in this year's elections. Any chance to talk about it is welcome. CJ Roberts' ill advised remarks provided the White House that chance. More . . .

Crawford is either not smart about politics or, more likely, she is spouting a GOP talking point. Obviously, Crawford did not like the President's remarks on Citizens United in the SOTU. This disdain may be an artifact of the silly idea that the SCOTUS is not part of the political arena that many SCOTUS watchers share. It may be because she agrees with Citizens United.

Whatever the reason, it is not difficult to understand why the White House answered CJ Roberts' critique - because it was politically advantageous to do so. I find it hard to believe that Crawford really does not understand that.

Speaking for me only

< Voices | Would The Senate Doublecross The House? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The White House Is Political, So Is The SCOTUS | 51 comments (51 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I think it is the NFL foul rule (none / 0) (#1)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 10:29:48 AM EST

He who hits last gets penalized.

How much (none / 0) (#2)
by jbindc on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 10:31:56 AM EST

of a boon is that going to be to Dems in November? Or is it? Yes, people are outraged that corporations can now give unlimited amounts of money to policital campaigns, but frankly, that's really always been the case - they just had to hide it better. And the fact that Obama passed up public financing, while raising a half billion dollars in 2008 himself (and the total US elections were predicted to be $5.3 billion), means that this argument may ring hollow coming from him.

Voters will hear the message and shrug and think it's politics as usual.

That's what I was wondering (none / 0) (#8)
by nycstray on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 10:51:00 AM EST

does he really think he can run on the "grassroots" schtick again or something similar?


Huh? (none / 0) (#25)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 12:56:04 PM EST

Yes, people are outraged that corporations can now give unlimited amounts of money to policital campaigns, but frankly, that's really always been the case - they just had to hide it better.

Corporations are still barred from contributing to political campaigns. Tillman is still in force.


: not any more (none / 0) (#26)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 01:03:49 PM EST

have you not been paying attention?

This is interesting: (none / 0) (#3)
by oculus on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 10:37:56 AM EST

"To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we're there," Roberts said.

I shte "political pep rally" a recent phenomina?

: For the hookers and poker party afterward. (none / 0) (#10)
by Salo on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 10:52:22 AM EST

That's why.

FAQs re State of the Union: (none / 0) (#4)
by oculus on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 10:48:14 AM EST

See footnote 9: seats in the well are reserved for any Supreme Court justices "who choose to attend."

Another view (none / 0) (#5)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 10:48:40 AM EST

I don't November is the point. Let's read the article all the way through.

"To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we're there," Roberts said.
He didn't slam Mr. Obama for singling out the Court, as some have done. He said people have a right to criticize the Court if they disagree with a decision.
"I have no problems with that," Roberts 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."
<snip>
'm not suggesting they won't get a fair shake simply because the White House is trying to stick it to the conservative justices. George Bush repeatedly got slapped down by this Court, even though he never lashed out at the justices.
But at some point -- and I'd say that point is now -- the Obama Administration is working against its interests.
They'd do well to remember that on a lot of the issues they care about, the Supreme Court gets to decide. No matter how much they stomp their feet and shout, "I don't LIKE your idea; I like MY idea," the Supreme Court is going to get the last word.

If there is any political point at all I think it is Joe Six Pack seeing Obama attacking the SC. That only encourages his base. Repubs and Independents will be repealed.

Repubs... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 10:53:41 AM EST

...should be repealed.

Somehow, I just can't imagine Joe Six Pack identifying closely with the SC. I'll bet ole Average Joe would be hard pressed to name even one of them.


: They don't have to know the names (none / 0) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 11:01:43 AM EST

All they need to do is see the actions.
His Joe Six Pack base will love it. Repub and Independent Joe Six Packs will be repelled.
But hey! Maybe he can send Emanuel over to the SC's showers and do some "nekid finger" pointin' to get them in line.
;-)

Leaving aside the misstatement? (none / 0) (#6)
by me only on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 10:49:33 AM EST

Her actual statement:

It wasn't enough that Mr. Obama, for the first time in modern history

Your characterization of her statement:

it was not the first time a President has criticized a SCOTUS decision in the SOTU

Maybe Justice Stevens considers 1936 modern history. Ginsburg was 2, the other justices weren't born.

Roe v Wade (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 10:54:24 AM EST

Is pretty modern history.


: A) (none / 0) (#15)
by me only on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 11:15:52 AM EST

Reagan's "criticism" was 11 years after the fact.
B)

We should rise above bitterness and reproach, and if Americans could come together in a spirit of understanding and helping, then we could find positive solutions to the tragedy of abortion.
Stinging rebuke. I am surprised Blackmun didn't cry.

I think the 20th C is pretty modern type history- (none / 0) (#41)
by jawbone on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 06:27:43 PM EST

But, OK, what do you think should be considered "modern" in terms of history? T/U.


No longer than the lifetime of (none / 0) (#42)
by me only on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 08:18:25 PM EST

the participants.

Better yet, no longer than the living memory of the participants. Considering that the average Gen X'er can't tell you when WWII was, it is fair to say that 1936 was a long, long time ago.


: From Wiki: Modern History is post-Middle Ages (none / 0) (#43)
by jawbone on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:34:46 PM EST

Three-age system prehistory
Stone Age
>> Lower Paleolithic: Homo, Homo erectus,
>> Middle Paleolithic: early Homo sapiens
>> Upper Paleolithic: behavioral modernity
>> Neolithic: civilization
Bronze Age
>> Near East | India * Europe * China * Korea
Iron Age
>> Bronze Age collapse * Ancient Near East * India * Europe * China * Japan * Korea * Nigeria
History
Earliest records (2500 - 500 BCE)
Antiquity (500 BCE - 500 CE)
Middle Ages (500 - 1492)
Early modern (1492 - 1789)
Modern (1789 - 1989)
Contemporary (1989 - present)
I hadn't realized the definition of contemporary history, which may fit what you mean by Modern. Very intersting; glad you made me look it up!
From the discussion of Contemporary History:

Contemporary historic events are those that are immediately relevant to the present day.

Modern History? (none / 0) (#52)
by cal1942 on Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 11:26:24 AM EST

At least the last 100 years.


the rest of that quote (none / 0) (#7)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 10:49:42 AM EST

For the life of me, I just don't get why the White House continues to try to pick a fight with the Supreme Court. I've suggested before that perhaps it's a sign President Obama intends to tap an outsider when John Paul Stevens retires, so he can beat the drum that the Court is out of touch with everyday Americans.

sounds pretty good to me

Who could such (none / 0) (#18)
by MKS on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 12:26:20 PM EST

an outsider be?


Colin Powell? (none / 0) (#19)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 12:27:13 PM EST

I can think of several.


A non-lawyer? (none / 0) (#20)
by MKS on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 12:30:55 PM EST

Possible I guess....How about Rahm Emanuel? Rachel Maddow?


would that be humor? (none / 0) (#21)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 12:36:16 PM EST

I think the voters would respond favorably to the idea of putting someone on the court who was not a total product of legal academia.

it would not be a first.


for example (none / 0) (#23)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 12:50:34 PM EST

Experience needed? The long history of nonjudge justices.

John Marshall is widely revered as "the great Chief Justice," but before joining the Supreme Court in 1801 he had never served a day in judicial robes and lost the only case he argued at the high court.

Agree (none / 0) (#24)
by mmc9431 on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 12:55:40 PM EST

I think it would be very good for the court to have a touch of reality added into the mix.


I always thought (none / 0) (#27)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 01:04:35 PM EST

Bubba would be an interesting SC pick. not without downsides, but interesting.


No (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by squeaky on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 01:06:19 PM EST

It has to be a woman, imo. Hillary would be a better choice.


I think that Hillary would probably (none / 0) (#31)
by MO Blue on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 01:48:40 PM EST

be a good justice. The main problem IMO is her age. Bush made sure his selections would not only be sure to vote his ideology but would be in their seats for a long, long time (approximately 30 years).


Genetics (none / 0) (#32)
by squeaky on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 02:05:07 PM EST

Her father died at age 82, mother still kicking at 91... She is 63 so we could get 30 years out of her yet..


Hillary would be terrible (none / 0) (#44)
by jbindc on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 07:59:09 AM EST

She's not "judicial". She's a partisan policy wonk.

Jennifer Granholm of Michigan might be a good choice - she has trial experience, been the AG, and a governor.


HUh? (none / 0) (#45)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 12:59:07 PM EST

As a Senator Hillary was about as biPartisan as they come. Not that that makes any difference for becoming a SC judge these days, (Roberts, Alito, Thomas speak to that point.) You must have swallowed her campaign rhetoric whole, and are still living in that dream world. Must be the same world where those who thought Obama was a partisan leading the way to the new progressive world came from.

Was it dkos?


Squeaks (none / 0) (#46)
by jbindc on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 03:15:25 PM EST

You need to learn to read above a 1st grade level.

Hillary would be a terrible justice - she's a policy wonk and does not have a judicial temperament.

But thanks for the laugh as you once again manage to drag the primaries in!


Funny, But Predictable (1.00 / 1) (#47)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 03:44:37 PM EST

You forgot the word "partisan" second time around.

Hillary would be terrible[.] She's not "judicial". She's a partisan policy wonk. [bolding mine]

Revisionist version to support your suggestion that I need to read above 1st grade level:

oops you left out the word "partisan" second time around. Pretty obviously dishonest, but typical. Did you think no one would notice or are you really that dumb?


I dont see what (none / 0) (#48)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 04:04:11 PM EST

about being a policy wonk means she is not judicial.
seems like a pretty good match to me.


I Agree (2.00 / 1) (#49)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 04:30:16 PM EST

She is a super hard worker, super smart, and way better judicial temperament than several sitting SC justices.

And even if she is the fictional "partisan policy wonk" that jbindc prefers, as opposed to the bipartisan policy wonk that her Senate history indicates, how does that make her no good for SC?

Oh well, drinking enough kool aid imparts special knowledge for worshipers about the revered object of worship, so what do I know about HRC, or Obama for that matter.


Wow (none / 0) (#50)
by jbindc on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 04:37:14 PM EST

You are really out there? What's it like on the planet you live on where you just get to make stuff up all day? No wonder you end up ticking off so many people around here all the time. I'm sorry you're so lonely that you require so much attention - even if it's negative attention.

Ok - she's a BI PARTISAN policy wonk. Sorry I forgot the word - of course, I MUST have some nefarious plot behind that and want to rewrite history. I still stand by that - she likes to eke out policy. She would not make a good judge - two completely different skill sets and personalities.

Although the irony is delicious - usually I'm harangued about being a Hillary apologist, and now I'm dissing her and rewriting her history to lessen her.


: Your World (none / 0) (#51)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 04:58:06 PM EST

First you define Hillary as a policy wonk then you pull from your but that policy wonk=bad SC justice. Nice closed system there, must run on lots of kool aid. Have to give it to you for imagination though, or lack of it (hard to tell).
Do you also believe that someone who good with animals and or children would be a bad cook or a bad auto mechanic?

Or (5.00 / 0) (#29)
by squeaky on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 01:07:42 PM EST

Even better, Anita Hill...


: either one (none / 0) (#30)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 01:10:02 PM EST

works for me.
and you are probably right.

Gerry Spence (none / 0) (#34)
by jondee on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 02:32:30 PM EST

or the reanimated frozen head of Clarence Darrow. One's as likely as the other.


: how about Kucinich (none / 0) (#35)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 02:39:04 PM EST

it would get his sorry a$$ out of the congress.

I nominate... (none / 0) (#36)
by kdog on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 02:44:22 PM EST

Ron Kuby. The court could use a ponytail...and someone from the good side of the force, of course:)


: Stay outa' Malibu, Lebowski ! (none / 0) (#37)
by jondee on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 02:54:07 PM EST

repealed? gosh.... "repelled" (none / 0) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 10:51:40 AM EST

It was justified (none / 0) (#14)
by mmc9431 on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 11:10:02 AM EST

I think the criticism is fair game. Republicans have used "judicial activism" as a campaign slogan for years. The Roberts court shows that activism can work both ways. It's not always the wild eyed liberal.

Scalia and company have never shied away from a fight. Just because they happen to be judges is no reason they should be immune to criticism.

Perhaps Capt. Howdy will (none / 0) (#16)
by oculus on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 11:21:47 AM EST

offer to be on whether any Justices show up next year.

OH (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 12:45:39 PM EST

BET on.

you know, if people are going to appreciate your witty asides you need to learn to type better than me.

and no, I have no opinion.


: I knew you would figure it out! (none / 0) (#38)
by oculus on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 02:58:11 PM EST

what? (none / 0) (#17)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 11:28:13 AM EST

is that supposed to mean. on what.


I'm going against the current here but (none / 0) (#39)
by ZtoA on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 03:11:37 PM EST

I actually was uncomfortable with the way the criticism was played at the SOU. I'm certainly not Joe six pack, but I'm no insider either. It looks so much like pro-wrestling where it is all show and not real. Even the language the pundits (pro-wrestler sports casters) use is revealing - so and so "hits" and "takes down" and so on.

But I'm in a minority. I totally agree with Obama that this is a terrible ruling, so I'm not sure what I'd rather see. Yes, words DO count, but I'm beginning to tune the rhetoric out. I guess I'd just like to see strong partisan positions and less polarizing and posturing empty words. I know, that's hopelessly naive - a "can't we all get along" moment.

Jan Crawford was on some Sunday talk show (none / 0) (#40)
by jawbone on Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 06:24:13 PM EST

I saw recently -- and she seemed to be taking a conservative chair in the usual panel.

When I saw her on CBS her comments and who she subbed for became clearer.

What amazed me is that Ms. Crawford did not seem to have any historical knowledge of the several presidents who have criticized Supreme Court decisions throughout our history.

At least she didn't mention those when she seemed so shocked --shocked, I tell you!-- on CBS that Obama said what he did in the SOTU.

I may be wrong, but I was puzzled by her takes on things.