Gibbs Fires Back At Chief Justice Roberts Over Obama Criticism

The White House fired back at Justice John Roberts Tuesday night, after the Supreme Court Chief told a crowd that he found it "very troubling" that President Barack Obama would criticize the court during his State of the Union address.

In a statement sent to reporters, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the only troubling thing was the 5-4 ruling by the court, which said that corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money advocating on behalf of candidates in elections. Roberts leads the court.

"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," Gibbs said. "The President has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response."

The push back against the Supreme Court header from the White House seems almost unprecedented in its directness, though White House officials claim previous administrations expressed equally public criticisms of the court. Undoubtedly, it's bound to spur another round of debates over what constitutes proper decorum between the two branches.

The president already stirred the pot when, during the State of the Union address in late January, he called out members of the court to their face over their ruling in Citizens United. The remarks were welcomed as a healthy rebuke by good government groups, who viewed the decision as a practical disaster for removing moneyed interests from politics. Conservatives saw it as an offensive lecturing inappropriate breach of etiquette.

Roberts, himself, made it clear where he stood on Tuesday, telling a crowd at the University of Alabama that the president had "denigrated" the State of the Union into "a political pep rally."

"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," Roberts said.

Comments

[LynnHasselberger]

02:30 PM on 03/17/2010

Roberts and the others who voted in favor of spend unlimited spending by corporations advocating on behalf of candidates in elections should be ashamed. I think the standing ovation was unnecessary (altho, I got a charge out of it I have to admit) but I find Obama's criticism in front of--and on behalf of--American citizens totally appropriate. If Obama hadn't handled it this way, most Americans would not even know about it. Thank you, this time, media for the continuing conversation. Sure beats bubble boy.

[MadeandBakedintheUSA]

02:09 PM on 03/14/2010

Roberts, himself, made it clear where he stood on Tuesday, telling a crowd at the University of Alabama that the president had "denigrated" the State of the Union into "a political pep rally."

"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," Roberts said.

--- Or ignore the fact that Justice Alito did not abide by that protocol!

Should we ignore that?

[Tom S Cedar Mill]

04:38 PM on 03/13/2010

If SCOTUS is *supposed* to be neutral (as in interpreting law rather than legislating from the bench), then yes, sitting there expressionless would tend to go along with the job. Maybe Roberts should seek some other line of work. I'm sure he could quit and become a lobbyist or get a plush gig running a university somewhere.

[ehjay]

01:53 PM on 03/13/2010

Based upon recent events we can revisit the inauguration in Jan. 2009. It now appears that Roberts may not have simply erred in administering the oath. It appears that he may have deliberately and publicly attempted to embarrass the President to ingratiate himself with the Republican party. If true that would make C.J. Roberts an ingrate of the lowest order. Roberts was offered an honour and a privilege to administer the oath. He is starting to look like a rat, unworthy of sitting on the Bench.

[sinyasam]

04:52 PM on 03/12/2010

has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling," Roberts said.

Did anyone tell Alito that he was suppose to be expressionless? No? Well, "You Lie" Roberts. It was and is a BAD decision. You made it, now live with the consequences. Guess how much Rupert Murdock will get his Saudi partners to pitch in to fight climate control and environmental laws?

[mishara]

03:45 PM on 03/12/2010

To turn a common conservative complaint back onto Chief Justice Roberts :
he and his SCOTUS cronies have denigrated the Supreme Court to an activist panel!

What a brazen decision of self-interest. What a blow to democracy.
With this decision these 5 justices, in one fell swoop, have converted our system into an unapologetic corporatocracy. Time to edit those patriotic political speeches now, folks.

If this 30+ year old decision was reversed, why not, in the same consideration re: 14th Amendment, return to the 1886 the decision that corporations = personhood in Santa Clara vs Southern Pacific??? Reverse THAT!

[redkittyred]

05:31 PM on 03/11/2010

For it to be a balance of power between the three branches, Justice Kennedy needs to take his criticism against the SCOTUS from the other branches when needed. Thus. balance of power. SCOTUS is not above reproach from the other 2 branches...

[JohnJay60]

12:02 AM on 03/11/2010

When the conservative Supreme Court announced in 2005 (Kelo vs. City of New London) that government can take my property and hand it to another PRIVATE citizen, President Bush did NOT call Congress to action to take legislative action to mitigate the conservative disaster in the Kelo ruling.

I applaud Obama for trying to stimulate response to the latest supreme court ruling disaster. This is a sign of leadership.

[eric21]

04:02 AM on 03/11/2010

It is the supreme court that has broken down, not the process. John Roberts is another example of the problems caused by bush, wbo nominated him, that we face today. Please Mr. Roberts go back to Buffalo and shovel snow instead of .......

[TimTheWizard]

05:07 PM on 03/11/2010

The Supreme Court broke down officially under FDR when they allowed the utterly unconstitutional New Deal to pass.

[TimTheWizard]

05:07 PM on 03/11/2010

Ummm, first of all, it was ALL liberal judges who made that ruling. Alito, Thomas, Roberts and Scalia that had your back, you know, those evil conservatives. ALL of the liberals voted for it. And Kennedy, the metrosexual justice.

Second of all has Obama tried to get around the Kelo decision? Nope!!! Because it was the sociofascist thing to do. Government giving to corporations so corporations will give back to them. That is the new, dangerous hybrid of politician that Obama represents. Half fascist, half socialist. All dangerous.

Fortunately, local and state governments are creating laws to prevent themselves from falling into this temptation.

[TheOside]

09:15 PM on 03/10/2010

Politicians from both sides are hypocrites. Where's all the hollering over money from lobbyist's funding their campaign coffers. Start with laws outlawing any money from special interest groups to campaign funds. Pork Barreling is legalized corruption, which is payback for those campaign funds. This country has legalized corruption and made it into an art. There is no such thing as an honest politician, at least at a national level, in this country. All our hands are dirty, cause we keep reelecting them.

[nicole473]

08:15 PM on 03/10/2010

The majestic petulance of John Roberts

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/10/roberts/

[samilli3]

06:36 PM on 03/10/2010

THE G.O.P twist is what i dread to see

[mykelb]

06:20 PM on 03/10/2010

Actually, what's really troubling is that fact that there are 5 papists sitting on the Supreme Court. We know how backward their thought processes are and how they have ruled in favor of their regressive agenda.

[Liberty Jane]

03:58 PM on 03/10/2010

Profits help people.

[nicole473]

04:50 PM on 03/10/2010

Corporations are not people.

Money is not speech.

[lee959]

05:20 PM on 03/10/2010

They most certainly and it most certainly is.

[ljmck]

04:54 PM on 03/10/2010

How so? Wages have been stagnant for twenty years while costs have skyrocketed.

[Spengler47]

03:50 PM on 03/10/2010

I didn't agree with the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United. However, Roberts is correct in criticizing Obama for his attack on the court during the state of the union address. At the very least it was gauche and unbefitting the dignity of the presidency, the court and the congress.

[Marioth]

03:59 PM on 03/10/2010

Wrong. We have free speech in the country. There is no constitutional test for what is or is not "gauche" with regards to protected speech. If you don't like, that's your problem. The president is entitled to confront a co-equal branch of government, any time, any place.

That you agree with the president evaporates your argument.

[nicole473]

04:40 PM on 03/10/2010

Then tell it to Bush and Reagan since they both did the same thing.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201001290019

[pottedferne]

03:28 PM on 03/10/2010

why couldn't roberts get the oath of office right?

[docbets]

04:18 PM on 03/10/2010

I read at the time an interesting piece -- somewhere, don't remember -- that Roberts is a grammar fanatic, and the oath is written with a split infinitive, so it was suggested that he was incapable of saying it the way it was written (ungrammatically), so fumbled it. Obama, knowing the oath, was startled by Roberts' goof, so he had to fumble.

Now, I have said elsewhere that I thought it was a hostile (passive-aggressive) move on Roberts' part to make Obama seem unsure, and based in the fact that Obama had voted against the Roberts confirmation. The anal grammarian story would seem to negate that argument, unless you figure on unconscious hostility, which could evidence itself more easily if a person had a weakness for the grammar.

Whatever the case, it is not a complex assignment, and Roberts should have paid enough attention to doing it correctly. I never heard him apologize, either. Obama is extraordinarily gracious.