The majestic petulance of John Roberts

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr.../03/10/roberts/

 

The petulance and sense of self-importance on display here is quite something to behold:

 

 

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Obama's State of the Union address was "very troubling" . . . . Obama chided the court, with the justices seated before him in their black robes, for its decision on a campaign finance case. . . . 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."

 

 

It's not actually a unique event of oppression or suffering to have to sit and listen to a speech where someone criticizes you and you can't respond that very moment (but are able, as Roberts just proved, to respond freely afterward). Even in the State of the Union Address, it's completely customary for the President to criticize the Congress or the opposition party right to their faces, while members of his party stand and cheer vocally, and -- as the reaction to Joe Wilson's outburst demonstrated -- "decorum" dictates that the targets of the criticism sit silently and not respond until later, once the speech is done. That's how speeches work. Only Supreme Court Justices would depict their being subjected to such a mundane process as an act of grave unfairness (and, of course, Roberts' comrade, Sam Alito, could not even bring himself to abide by that decorum).

 

What makes Roberts' petty, self-absorbed grievance all the more striking is that this is what judges do all the time. It's the essence of the judicial branch. Federal judges are basically absolute tyrants who rule over their courtroom and those in it with virtually no restraints. They can and do scold, criticize, berate, mock, humiliate and threaten anyone who appears before their little fiefdoms -- parties, defendants, lawyers, witnesses, audience members -- and not merely "decorum," but the force of law (in the form of contempt citations or other penalties), compels the target to sit silently and not respond. In fact, lawyers can be, and have been, punished just for publicly criticizing a judge.

 

As is true for any large group of people, the range of behavior varies greatly, from unfailingly polite judges to pathologically thuggish ones, but the core dynamic of the judicial process is that judges wield absolute power and everyone else is essentially captive to their whims. That is why the overriding attribute of those who interact with them is one of extreme, royalty-like deference, both formally (standing when they enter, addressing them as "Your Honor," having them sit always on an elevated platform, decked in their flowing, magisterial robes) as well as informally (watch any court proceeding and see lawyers petrified of somehow offending the judge). To say that, for many of them, this endless deference affects their expectations and sense of entitlements is to understate the case, as Roberts just proved.

 

Supreme Court Justices, in particular, have awesome, unrestrained power. They are guaranteed life tenure, have no authorities who can sanction them except under the most extreme circumstances, and, with the mere sweep of a pen, can radically alter the lives of huge numbers of people or even transform our political system (as five of them, including Roberts, just did, to some degree, in Citizens United). The very idea that it's terribly wrong, uncouth, and "very troubling" for the President to criticize one of their most significant judicial decisions in a speech while in their majestic presence -- not threaten them, or have them arrested, or incite violence against them, but disagree with their conclusions and call for Congressional remedies (as Art. II, Sec. 3 of the Constitution requires) -- approaches pathological levels of vanity and entitlement. The particular Obama/Roberts/Alito drama is an unimportant distraction, but what this reflects about the mindset of many judges, including (perhaps especially) ones on the Supreme Court and obviously the Chief Justice of that court, is definitely worth considering.

[yo mama]

So let me get this straight: Roberts is publicly complaining about Obama publicly complaining about Roberts.

 

And there we have it. Grown men, leaders of the free world, acting like 15 year old school girls (sans the knee-high socks and sexy plaid skirts)

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

My take on it is Roberts somehow thinks the Court is elevated above the other two branches of government and should never be questioned by its siblings if you will, rather than the whole 3 co-equal branch thing.

[Azazello1313]

what comes across as petulant and self-important is whoever wrote that article.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

what comes across as petulant and self-important is whoever wrote that article.

 

Glenn Greenwald, a guy you yourself have linked to in the past.

 

Does that make you petulant and self-important? :oldrazz:

[yo mama]

Glenn Greenwald, a guy you yourself have linked to in the past.

 

Does that make you petulant and self-important? :oldrazz:

Of course not. Az would be petulant and self-important regardless.

[Ursa Majoris]

Roberts and Alito might be petulant and self-important but Scalia has taken that whole schtick to new, previously undreamed-of levels.

[dmarc117]

he does have a point about the gheyness of the sotu address

[Pope Flick]

Wasn't Roberts the guy who flubbed up both sentences of the Swearing In of the President?

[Perchoutofwater]

So Roberts was petulant but Obama wasn't?

[Ursa Majoris]

So Roberts was petulant but Obama wasn't?

Correct.

[Perchoutofwater]

Correct.

 

Wow, how much did you sell yourself for?

[Ursa Majoris]

Wow, how much did you sell yourself for?

So, Obama made a point in the SOTU that the recent decision could allow a flood of foreign money, which it certainly could. He encouraged Congress to put together something to arrest that. That is a legitimate point for the president to make in a wide-ranging speech which is what the SOTU is. Obama wasn't scoring a point against Roberts, he was stating that the administration will do it's best to negate the SC decision.

 

Roberts, OTOH, didn't justify the decision, he just whined about being criticized. In fact, he wasn't - the SC decision was. He ain't the Pope with his cloak of infallibility as much as he wants to think he is. If criticism of the president is legitimate - and it is - then so must criticism of the SC be. These aren't Olympians above the fray, these are politicians in black duds.

[billay]

For all the crowing around here about government power grabs and curtailment of individual liberties, that no one has expressed any concern over the actions of the Bush Court seriously undermines the sincerity of those claims IMO.

[Caveman_Nick]

For all the crowing around here about government power grabs and curtailment of individual liberties, that no one has expressed any concern over the actions of the Bush Court seriously undermines the sincerity of those claims IMO.

 

This is a tiring schtick. If you want to bring up something the court has done and see how people feel about it, do so.

 

Complaining that other people aren't being unilaterally critical in an manner that suits you is pointless.

[driveby]

I can't really see how you guys could be defending BO here but at this point it's probably all you have left so I guess I understand.

[billay]

This is a tiring schtick. If you want to bring up something the court has done and see how people feel about it, do so.

 

Complaining that other people aren't being unilaterally critical in an manner that suits you is pointless.

Your objection rings a little hollow considering you've already passed on opportunities to address any such rulings.

 

There has been considerable discussion on this board about the Citizen's united case, but that's a very obvious example.

 

This court has stuffed Miranda protection into a narrow 14 day window.

 

When the police screw up and issue an unjustified warrant, that's ok.

 

If fact, why don;t we get rid of the Exclusionary Rule altogether?

[Ursa Majoris]

I can't really see how you guys could be defending BO here but at this point it's probably all you have left so I guess I understand.

I guess you're right. The Supreme Court's rulings should be completely above criticism.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Ursa Majoris

[Savage Beatings]

My aren't we all lined up predictably on both sides of this issue.

[Azazello1313]

I guess you're right. The Supreme Court's rulings should be completely above criticism.

 

not remotely what roberts said (we really need a :strawman: gif on these boards). he was asked specifically about the president calling them out like that, and I think his response was pretty measured:

 

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."

 

Breaking from tradition, Obama criticized the court's decision that allows corporations and unions to freely spend money to run political ads for or against specific candidates.

 

"With all due deference to the separation of powers the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said in January.

 

Justice Samuel Alito was the only justice to respond at the time, shaking his head and mouthing the words "not true" as Obama continued.

 

Roberts told the students he wonders whether justices should attend the speeches.

 

"I'm not sure why we're there," said Roberts, a Republican nominee who joined the court in 2005.

 

but whatever...I guess stuff like this and the "hypocrisy" of sarah palin telling an anecodte about getting health care as a 5 year-old in a country that would have socialist medicine 20 years later is all you guys have to hang your hat on these days.

[Ursa Majoris]

not remotely what roberts said (we really need a :strawman: gif on these boards). he was asked specifically about the president calling them out like that, and I think his response was pretty measured:

 

but whatever...I guess stuff like this and the "hypocrisy" of sarah palin telling an anecodte about getting health care as a 5 year-old in a country that would have socialist medicine 20 years later is all you guys have to hang your hat on these days.

 

So was it not true?

 

Justice Samuel Alito was the only justice to respond at the time, shaking his head and mouthing the words "not true" as Obama continued.

 

And at least three didn't show up. It's not compulsory, so next time take a pass.

 

Edit: And if you REALLY want to avoid criticism, try not to be political. That would be nice.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Ursa Majoris

[Azazello1313]

Roberts, OTOH, didn't justify the decision, he just whined about being criticized.

 

the court issues these things called "opinions" when they make a ruling. maybe you should read this one.

[moneymakers]

Hmm i remember Alito mouthing something like. Thats not true.

 

So its okay for the President of the U.S.A. to stand there and tell lies to the entire nation and the Supreme court has no right to say anything about it afterwords.

 

Freedom of speech at its finest.

[Duchess Jack]

Didn't Reagan critisize the court for no school prayer and Roe v Wade during the state of the union?

[Ursa Majoris]

the court issues these things called "opinions" when they make a ruling. maybe you should read this one.

So he'd already justified it. Fine. Still doesn't place him above criticism. Although it might be a long way off, when the court swings back the other way (hopefully Scalia will go on a shooting trip with Cheney soon), we'll see if you're still of the same mind.