iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

John Roberts: Scene At Obama's State Of Union Was 'Very Troubling'

JAY REEVES   03/ 9/10 10:09 PM ET   AP

John Roberts

TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Barack Obama's first State of the Union address was "very troubling" and that the annual speech to Congress has "degenerated into a political pep rally."

Responding to a University of Alabama law student's question about the Senate's method of confirming justices, Roberts said senators improperly try to make political points by asking questions they know nominees can't answer because of judicial ethics rules.

"I think the process is broken down," he said.

Obama chided the court for its campaign finance decision during the January address, with six of the court's nine justices seated before him in their black robes.

Roberts said he wonders whether justices should attend the address.

"To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we're there," said Roberts, a Republican nominee who joined the court in 2005.

Roberts said anyone is free to criticize the court and that 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 used the speech to criticize 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.

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

In response to Roberts' remarks Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs focused on the court's decision and not the chief justice's point about the time and place for criticism of 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."

Justice Antonin Scalia once said he no longer goes to the annual speech because the justices "sit there like bumps on a log" in an otherwise highly partisan atmosphere.

Roberts opened his appearance in Alabama with a 30-minute lecture on the history of the Supreme Court and became animated as he answered students' questions. He joked about a recent rumor that he was stepping down from the court and said he didn't know he wanted to be a lawyer until he was in law school.

While Associate Justice Clarence Thomas told students at Alabama last fall he saw little value in oral arguments before the court, Roberts disagreed.

"Maybe it's because I participated in it a lot as a lawyer," Roberts said. "I'd hate to think it didn't matter."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Barack Obama's first State of the Union address was "very troubling" and that the annual speech to Congress...
TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Barack Obama's first State of the Union address was "very troubling" and that the annual speech to Congress...
Filed by T.J. Ortenzi  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 6,921
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (129 total)
photo
fromdnorth
OK I checked my micro-bio (didn't know I had one
12:05 AM on 04/04/2010
I was troubled when he screwed the Oath of Office... as a wink to his supporters...
08:31 AM on 03/15/2010
Justice Roberts should resign in protest!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Burke
Author of Journey Home
11:42 AM on 03/13/2010
I'm shocked, shocked to learn the Supreme Court is a political partisan animal...and would like to remind everyone about Gore v. Bush - in that ruling the Justices - who should know the law better than anyone actual put into the ruling - that no one or entity should rely or use their ruling as precedent. If its bad law for the future its bad law for the present and they essentially said in real time - their ruling was bad law - but still stopped the vote before the recount was over.

If they had just done their job impartially we would be one decade closer to energy independence.

Paul Burke
Journey Home
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:30 AM on 03/12/2010
"Captain Kangaroo" roberts
http://australiawallpaper.info/bulkupload/wallpaper/Red%20Kangaroo.jpg
photo
Lahonda
Bynocent Instander
11:10 PM on 03/11/2010
Glenn Beck, packed inside a suitcase... leaving the country with Rush Limbaugh.

It's all I can think about lately.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
bluize
I am a Libra. I will get back to you.
12:42 AM on 03/12/2010
And that is a very pleasant thought.
photo
Lahonda
Bynocent Instander
01:44 PM on 03/13/2010
...only if his breathing straw has a wicked kink in it.
02:07 PM on 03/11/2010
He could resign in protest.
12:24 PM on 03/11/2010
After Bush v. Gore (if the Florida Supreme Court got it wrong, why not send it back to them to ensure the recount was fair instead of just calling it for Bush?) it is very difficult for me to keep a straight face when any Supreme Court justice complains about being subjected to ridicule for a decision (Citizens United) that was apparently motivated by politics, too.

Its true that when the Supremes are entwined with the "everyday" political debate they're seen as a little less wise and a little more like advocates, if not shills. But, the Supremes have brought it on themselves. When you hang with whores you can't complain everybody looks sleazy.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Grada3784
Dogmatic Dictators, believers or not, not welcome
10:33 AM on 03/11/2010
If course it was troubling. Obama told the truth. Roberts would much prefer the lies of a George W. Bush.
10:03 AM on 03/11/2010
Wait, didn't he take an oath? Did he violate it on that campaign finance decision? Can there be a panalty?
08:15 AM on 03/11/2010
So he is troubled not because the courts decision on campaign finance was awful but because the court was called out in public about it. What I find unseemly and have for a while is sitting members of the court discussing anything other than the law behind the decisions they make. I know all branches of government are equal but I think it is good for the President to let everyone know every once while in real life the Executive Branch is a little bit more equal then others. Capice Justice Roberts ?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ztck5356
When in doubt, Google it.
08:13 AM on 03/11/2010
When the Supreme Court decided to appoint George Bush as President they turned the tide against them and started the people looking at their validity. Sorry John, but you guys brought this on yourselves with some BAD judgments. Like the campaign finance decision. You handed America over to the thugs.

I have no sympathy.
07:42 AM on 03/11/2010
Why is it troubling Roberts? Because the decision you made would totally hurt the American people and totally benefit corporate America. Because the President spoke the truth it is troubling to you,since you are not used to having Presidents that speak the truth. Roberts you a real shame.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dragonmaster
06:40 AM on 03/11/2010
'Most troubling' I suppose for an extremist like Roberts, it would be- he most likely secretly wishes the USA would slide into fascism- a political ideology he would feel most comfortable with.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BARRISTER
05:34 AM on 03/11/2010
President Obama needs to nominate two more Justices to the Supreme Court.

There is nothing in the Constitution or any Law which limits the number to 9.

Two more progressive human being Justices. Not like Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Dingbat & Co.
12:39 PM on 03/11/2010
Roosevelt tried it in 1937 when he attempted to tie the size of the Supreme Court's bench to the age of the justices. The legislation, called the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, stalled when a Justice retired and Roosevelt could replace him with someone who was more receptive to Roosevelt's New Deal legislation.

Public opinion at the time was split on the move, but today I think people would freak-out - which seems to be the tenor of all political discourse nowadays.
05:10 AM on 03/11/2010
Yes, there should be campaign reform but it's "Hollywood" I want to see included in it more than anyone else. They don't speak for the "average American" any more than special interest groupd do.