By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services
Poor John Roberts. His feelings are hurt. And he wants big bully Barack Obama to stop picking on him.
Poor John Roberts. Apparently, he’s been nursing a grudge ever since Jan. 27 when President Obama used his State of the Union address to single out the Supreme Court for criticism over its decision on corporate financing of political campaigns. “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama told assembled members of Congress. “Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”
At which point, most members of Congress leapt to their feet in applause, while members of the court sat in stunned silence — except for Samuel Alito, who shook his head while muttering the words “Not true.” Well, at least he didn’t shout out: “You lie!”
At the time, Roberts did not say a word. But he seized the opportunity this week to fire back when speaking to the University of Alabama Law School. Responding to a student’s question, Roberts unloaded on Obama. While acknowledging that criticism of the court is fair game, he insisted that the State of the Union was neither the appropriate time nor place. “The image of having the members of one branch of government stand up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according to the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”
The chief justice even went so far as to suggest that members of the court might stay home next year and watch the speech on television: “To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I’m not sure why we’re there.”
No sooner had his salvo hit the wires than the Obama White House, knowing a good fight when they see one, fired back. In a statement to reporters, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs ridiculed Roberts’ complaint: “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.”
And so the battle was joined between the president of the United States (POTUS) and the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) — or, as some have pointed out, between the president and Republican members of the court, also known as SCROTUS. It’s a battle John Roberts should never have started, because it’s a battle he’s sure to lose.
Even though members of the Supreme Court enjoy a lifetime appointment, they are not divine, nor perfect, and are certainly not immune to criticism. Ever since Thomas Jefferson tangled with John Marshall over the power of the court to rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress, the court and sitting justices have been fair game for complaint. Conservatives never hesitate to condemn the court over Roe v. Wade. Why should liberals hesitate over campaign finance?
As for Roberts’ threat to boycott next year’s speech … who cares? In January 2000, not one member of the court showed up for Bill Clinton’s final State of the Union address — not even Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the two members he had appointed. And their absence was scarcely noted by the media. Only the New York Times made note of the fact, under the headline: “Alas, Justices All Absent and No Truant Officers.”
If Roberts didn’t want any criticism of the court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, he should have thought twice before engineering such a dangerous body blow to American politics. As the case originally came before the court, it dealt only with funding for a long-forgotten 2008 campaign documentary. But Roberts insisted that the court, instead, review the entire sweep of campaign financing law. The result was the court’s absurd ruling that giant corporations, even foreign corporations, have the same free speech rights as average citizens — and are therefore free to donate unlimited funds to political candidates.
Citizens United is not only bad law, it’s a classic case of judicial activism for which John Roberts is singularly responsible — and which Congress is certain to overrule. In the meantime, Roberts should just sit down and shut up.
© 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
So much for Roberts word on not politicizing from the bench…back in GHW Bush’s regime;I realized that 1)No NeoConArtist has integrity, they never keep thier word or oaths. And 2)No NeoConArtist is capable of being a Christian: they shun the teachings of Jesus Christ in favor of the Old Testament,ie Jewish Laws and Traditions which makes them apostate Jews.
Dear John,
I would agree with you, but I would be more wide ranging than just the self-described NeoConArtist Republicans. I would also include the Right Extremeists who don’t include anyone but themselves, members of the NRA, who would shoot their way to appropriate (according to them) action, the Neo-Nazi’s and Skin Heads, who will”f***” you up for anything you do that they don’t like, so just avoid them when you know they are in town, the White Hoods of the KKK, who got turned down in our town to adopt a piece of road with which to impress their other national chapters but did get a nice pic of them in their hoods just beneath the highway sign of the road they wanted to adopt, just down the road from me, which made me feel so secure I was not likely to be the victim of some racially violent activity because I was the right race, ah, but my son is half Asian, so, I was classroom mom for 6 years after I was laid off for rejecting sexual harassment on the job at a franchise Marriot and did report it and THAT’S what happens to WASPS (White Anglo Saxon Protestants) who commit misogyny in this Free America with laws to protect you country and laws to give rights to corporations, but with rights come the responsibilities to follow laws, and the saws against sexual harassment and firing someone over not engaging in sexual activity with “the corporation” makes the “corporation” guilty, to serve time behind bars, since corporations fire people who refuse to give sex to an executive of the corporation. Thus, the entire property and affiliations of that corporation should be held responsible for what part of it does. Does any of this begin to make sense to you all, who thought it a neat idea that the corporation have the right to free speech, well then the entity with the right to free speech, is also exercising its free speech in forcing its employees into forcible rape or failure to perform the duties of said job and fired, and the said corporation, with such policy and such practice is entirely against the law, and being an entity with the American privileges of those laws under the Bill of Rights, are then in accordance also responsible for their actions if not under the Bill of Rights then the Ten Commandments, In God We Trust.
If Corporations have such rights, then they have such responsibilities, and starving a folk and his/her family may no longer be an option unless the corporation be in factually going bankrupt, and possibly as well, may NOT discontinue health care unless they are showing signs of such severe distress as actually not being able to afford them and may not, in any case prove to show a profit or dividends at the end of any year in which they did not provide insurance options with the same percentage co-pay as they had in their benefits package in 1990, the very same year, after ten years of Reaganomics, where 99% of American wealth in 10 years had moved from the top 2% of the population to the top 1% of the population, a little something I learned in grad school, but a statistic so stunning I never forgot it, such that 1% of Americans left went from owning 2% of the American Pie to 1% of the American Pie, who knows what the figure is today, verily looting the Treasury as they go along, “have not the heart to raise the taxes on the remainder of the population of the barely there middle and the rest of us lucky enough to be the working poor, so a general tax on food stuff, maybe not Similac for babies, or maybe so, but I heard it mentioned, so now we shall be taxed for the ver basics of humanitarian necessities which we give away in surplus to the overseas poor, but have none for our own homeless, ahhh, a policy to ponder….
So As faar as t he Old Testament goes, well my Grand Mere was French Canadien and nwould not let an old Testament in the house. You understand that French are by birth mostly Catholic, Roman Catholic, but oddly do not teach the old testament believeing that thier requisite Christian Faith begins with the deciple John the Baptists, and find the old testaments to lack the mercy and charity that the Christian Lord, Jesus Christ, had and taught, why the entire basis of the Christian faith is forgiveness, but in the Jewish faith the entire basis is justice, and eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and for the sake of the evolution of morality, that is quite sensible. Consider the case of King Solomon, the life of a babe hanging in the balance, but even in todays psychological theory, there being such a movement of selfishness brought about as the learned and wealthy models of behaivior have brought our General, and to us Americans, most particularly, the most severe forms of greed and avarice that we are seeing more and worse forms of parental abuse to the very lives of their children, patricide and matricide, all horrible cases, but greed has become almost an American disease, and those who get in the way, well, in this day and age, they are considered simply obstructions to be removed, yes, that is the American case, I do believe we can argue, so even as a majority of politicians in American consider themselves to be Christians, they are mostly in name only, and the Jewish politician, as well, that by the laws and intent equally of their faiths they would not qualify as in good standing, most especially during the election time, but even after if you look to the nature of the laws that are passed, one must admit that the laws of the Democrats, for health care, education, social security, letting the rich and wealthy pay a more fair share of taxes, these are much more moral that the laws that the Republicans put up, such as a limit to insurance coverage, for what, so, as my late ex-husband should die for lack of interferon for his hepatitis he brought back with him from Vietnam that neither the government, nor his insurance, nor disability would pay for, so he had to die, that’s the result of limiting coverage, so I say God would nix that one. How about that 70% tax cut for those with the absolute most money, I don’t think that takes much analysis, they didn’t use the money to create new jobs, but rather stashed the cash in their offshore tax evasion felony accounts, so I think we can agree the Lord would nix both the tax cut and the tax evasion felony accounts which need to have taxes for the life of the account and interest figured by a tax analyst before the account is shut down given a certain time and as a felony must be given some time due but if cooperative, perhaps their time could be serve under house arrest IF the applelation of Mr. Snipes sentence could be changed to house arrest, and time served, as his misdemeanor of non-payment sets precedent for the felony cases of tax evasion. And tuition paid for private k-12 for parents who can afford without scholarship shall donate 25% to the school for scholarships for those who cannot afford the tuition but have talent or special skills and would like the opportunity to pursue them at that school, if they pass entrance requirements and need bu the money to pursue their talents.
OK, that’s enough for now, but you get my drift, we must become much more Christian in thought and deed, start forgiving, become mindful of the needs of those around us, of their physical, mental, emotional needs, appreciate that those who kill are provoked by something bigger than a breadbox, this is a stressfull time in our America, and let the rich and wealthy know that WE KNOW THEY ARE PROFITTING FROM THIS DEPRESSION THIS TIME, this depression is for everybody else, the 99% who are not rich and wealthy, look at the DOW, they are taking cruises while our unemployment runs out, and we lose 40% of our 401K’s as we cash them in for survival sake, no one will hire this graying laid off professor when Jr. cut the funding of our program and all 29 of us profs in the department were laid off, I was the oldest, but the college was also laying off in other departments as well, I just have not gotten hired by anyone, anywhere to do anything…you know they don’t ask your age, they ask you when you graduated high school…bogus…and if you don’t fill it in the computer will not let you go on…bogus…they won’t let you fill out the application, and even if you have given them a resume, they want you to fill out their application, if only to get that date of graduation from high school and there is no way around it, and they all have it on their applications, a way around the rule, and being no spring chicken, graduated in ’72, yep, can’t lie, because then they have just cause to fire you, so what’s a 57 year old laid off prof to do, I can give you a list a mile long of what they WON’T hire me to do, after coming on 3 years now, you’ve pretty much tried everything, and I kon’t know how I disqualify to be a dishwasher in a kitchen, even though the manager said I would “intimidate” the other employees, heck I could educate some of the employees, we could have Read a short story a Week classes and review them before work and discuss interpretation, how’s about that, and for free. Or doing a ligiht touch of early or modern humanities, using the museum as a base, neat, huh, but, no he said I would just intimidate them…so actually for 3 years all I have heard is relocate, or intimidate, or wait a few more years and retire, and this is what I went to college for all those years to “mature, ripen like a fine wine” crap because no one will hire me.
OK, Class, Now you have the difference between Spinoza and Sarte, and you may be dismissed, and for those of you who would like more clarification or slept through class, you can review the points at jtran2484@aol.com/Spinozav.Sarte