Supreme Court Turns Out for Tongue-Lashing at State of the Union

Supreme Court justices received applause just now, as they entered the House chamber for the State of the Union address. But advance hints about the speech by President Obama suggest he won't be cheering. He is expected to take a swipe at the Court for its ruling last Thursday in Citizens United v. FEC, accusing the Court of opening the floodgates of special interest money into campaigns. He'll ask for support from Democrats and Republicans to undo the decision, which said that bans on independent expenditures from corporations violate their First Amendment rights.

The attendance rate of justices varies widely from year to year, occasionally even with no justices at all on hand. Tonight we spotted Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., Justice Anthony Kennedy -- author of Citizens United -- as well as Samuel Alito Jr., Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor.

UPDATE: A reader asks why the justices don't join in the applause during the State of the Union address. That's a longstanding tradition, driven by two interests: first, they do not want to seem partisan by applauding initiatives that one or another party is pushing. And second, you never know which of those initiatives might turn into legislation that might end up on the Court's docket for interpretation. 

Comments

[ann dalpiaz]

From a non-lawyer, just a citizen who watched the State of the Union address, Obama's behavior was embarassing and yes, "undprecedented" as Obama so often likes to say! I dare say Justice Alito has far more experience as a lawyer and judge than a "lecturer" like Obama.

[Mike L]

Obama may be a lot of things, but a Professor of Constitutional Law is not one of them. Most of his statements concerning American history and law, if not wrong, are greatly embellished.

[Art Leonard]

The decision was 5-4. Four of the justices agree with the president, who taught constitutional law and knows about the subject.
The majority decision said that the court was not deciding the question whether foreign corporations have first amendment rights to spend money on political advertising. But the president was correct in saying the opinion increases the ability of foreign entities to spend money to influence U.S. policitics, because foreign investors (individuals, companies and governments) are now major shareholders and creditors of U.S. corporations and are in a position to influence where and how those corporations spend their money to try to influence American voters in political campaigns. Restricting donations to individuals who are US citizens would cut down on this problem of foreign interference in our politics.

[Jay]

We already live in a society where Corporations attempt to influence who gets elected and to a greater extend, what laws get passed. After all, that's what lobbyists do and that's how many of those in Congress develop their vast riches in secret.

By allowing Corporations to independently advertise for one candidate over another, the Supreme Court has most assuredly guaranteed that the "underdogs" or those most likely to bring positive change for our way of life, will ever stand a chance of getting elected because some of the most needed changes would affect those Corporations who want to engage in the indepedent advertising.

What President Obama did, was, in my opinion, completely justified and I think that it is time that "the people's" voice be brought back into all aspects and branches of government by changing the laws regarding the Judicial branch of government by allowing "we the people" to vote in who will be our Supreme Court Justices every 4 years. Lifetime appointments need to be done away with in every aspect of our government and we need fresh, younger, and more open minded people in the Supreme Court.

Finally, I have no doubt that Congress, as a whole, will create some new law that will overturn what the Supreme Court did because if Corporations are free to influence directly, no longer will there be a need for Corporations to secretly invest in a Congressman's retirement plan if Corporations can simply use the threat of "either you do what we say or we'll make sure that someone who will gets elected."

[Sara Johnson]

Dear Leader is having a hard time tolerating the constitutional Republic he is encountering. It does make Marxist change difficult.

[Joe Klimaski]

I applaud Mr. Obama's comment regarding the Supreme Court decision. But at the same time he should tread lightly as he has displayed little regard for the Constitution himself.

[Jeff]

It was perfectly appropriate for Obama to criticize the Supreme Court's ruling during the State of the Union address. Supreme Court justices are not gods; they're just an independent branch of the federal government. So is Congress, and if the President can criticize Congress, he can criticize a Supreme Court decision.

[Lt. Col (R) Richard Liebert]

I remind all that the awful Dred Scott decision helped incite the flames that led
to our Civil War, and this decision almost
as bad as that AND the 1886 decision to make
corporations 'citizens' which diminishes our individual rights as individual 'human' citizens.

[Jacqueline]

Alito your busted

[Dawn]

Just a reminder -- Obama is not a professor. He never was a professor. That is one of the many myths about him. He was a lecturer in law school. That is all.

[BHC]

Obama deserves a tongue lashing for commenting on an issue (again) without doing all his homework. If he had actually read the decision, he would know that foreign corporations are outside its scope. Could the decision be extended to include foreign corporations? Of course it could. But the statement Obama made was simply "not true".

[Thomas]

Obama played the bully. Only an asshole insults people who are required to not respond.

[Daniel Demchak]

Obama was constitutional law professor. He has better qualifications to interpret constitutional law than most (all?) of the justices. I have no problem with a constitutional law professor criticizing supreme court decisions.

Also, I do believe Alito said "***hole". Not "Not True"... Although I could be mistaken.

[gigglebox]

Mr. Obama doesn't respect the three branches of government. How inappropriate of him to scold the Justices. I have never seen this kind of behavior. He is truly unfit and unqualified to be the President. Keep it up, Barry, your poor accomplishments in the legal profession and whatever course you taught at the University of Chicago are so evident now. I always knew the Emperor had no clothes.

[Wendy]

They deserved a tongue lashing from the President. I saw a post on a blog that explains why the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United is so dangerous. See

http://wendygdphillips.wordpress.com

[Dan Streible]

RE: "lecturer in chief sees fit to question the supreme law of the land"

He didn't say disobey law. He called on Congress to legislate to fix a problem. One can even think the Court was correct and still favor fixing the problem with a new law that passes constitutional muster.

[Mike L]

So, our little law school lecturer in chief sees fit to question the supreme law of the land. As far as I'm concerned, November can't come soon enough.

[Native JD]

Alito mouthed "Not true." like Wilson.

Where's the comity? How unjudicial!

[Dan Streible]

Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito just violated the protocol of impartiality. When the president said "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests . . . to spend without limit in our elections," Alito shook his head no several times and mouthed the words "No, they won't."

[Michael]

Although he didn't clap, Alito responded! http://viewfromll2.com/2010/01/27/not-true/

[Todd Lee]

Why don't the Justices clap during the speech?