Justice Stephen Breyer: 'Very Important' For Supreme Court To Attend State Of The Union

WASHINGTON -- While Chief Justice John Roberts may have found last year's State of the Union address "troubling" for the public rebuke President Obama applied to the Supreme Court for its Citizens United decision, not everyone on the bench was disturbed.

Fellow Justice Stephen Breyer, in a rare television interview, said that he would attend the president's upcoming State of the Union address, and those thereafter. As for why, however, the reasoning was a bit surprising. It is important, Breyer explained, that in a visual society, people see that judges play a role in process of governance.

"My job ... is to write opinions," Breyer told "Fox News Sunday." "The job of 307 million Americans is to criticize those opinions. And what they say is up to them. And the words I write are carrying out my job under the law as best I see it. That's true of my colleagues too.

"Going to the State of the Union, I will go next year. I have gone every year. I think it is very, very, very, important, very important for us to show up at that State of the Union because people today, as you know, are more and more visual ... and what they see in front of them at that State of the Union is the federal government, every part, the president, the Congress, the cabinet, the military, and I would like them to see the judges too, because federal judges are also part of that government."

Comments

[thirdcloud]

04:23 AM on 01/26/2011

Justice Stephen Breyer makes an important point about the importance of visual impact. Just as when someone runs from the police.

Visual interpretations are not new to those who work in the court system and they are often reflected in actual instructions given to juries: "A jury may find that flight is evidence that tends to show consciousness of guilt"

Justices Thomas, Scalia and Alito today avoided the eyes of our nation. The fact that Justice Scalia has not attending since the 90's does not mean that he isn't attempting to avoid the public eye (unless its his show) he's just been doing longer and maybe for go reason. The failure of these Judges to attend the State of the Union Address with their colleagues goes along way to confirming the appearances of their improprieties.

On the other hand, surely Justice Alito needed to work on his tan in Hawaii; and Justice Scalia most likely was duck hunting with the Koch brothers; Justice Thomas we assume was doing his civic duty by helping his wife with her taxes we're sure. No doubt these are all reasonable explanations I'm sure the public will accept. But somehow I don't think that Justice Roberts was the only one who wanted to avoid the troubling predicament of having the President point out their blatant assault on our democracy.

[HawaiiShira]

05:03 PM on 01/25/2011

Justice Thomas, if he goes, may not be grinning like a Cheshire Cat in his usual manner. Instead, I bet he wishes he had the robe tails of Scalia to duck & hide behind, but Scalia never attends. So instead, he will likely slink into chair, fold his hands, keep his head down, and clench his jaws, as cameras pan in on him, and commentators remind the American public that for the past 13 years, Justice Thomas wrongly did not disclose his wife's earnings, $700,000 of which came from The Heritage Foundation. He is undoubtedly, hoping no ones suggesting or mentioning the "I" word in their commentaries.

[fredvh]

04:30 PM on 01/25/2011

of course we see how biased breyer being on the right wing media
no wonder the court voted the way they did

[Chicagoperson]

12:44 AM on 01/23/2011

But will they co-mingle?

[Wnt1]

03:52 PM on 01/22/2011

I think that realistically the U.S. should move to a "virtual" state of the union address. Having the whole government meet up in one place presents a big juicy bullseye to every terrorist on Earth, and for what reason? It's a speech to the TV cameras anyway!

[TheHandyman]

06:35 PM on 01/25/2011

And heaven knows there are just millions if not billions of terriarist out there who have nothing better to do than give the People of the US to start from scratch and see if we can do a better job of picking people who want to do right rather than what will make them the most money. Yes, scatter them across the country so that the terriarists can see how resolute we aren't and how scared we aren't of them.

[allengoldchain]

05:00 PM on 01/03/2011

If Obama is going to make the platform of SOTU a political moment to attack people then I would say that the members of SCOTUS should respectfully decline the invitation..
Obama wants a political speech...organize a rally... this is just about the only time of the year that the president has the nations attention. Instead of attacking people,like he normally does in his rallies, his message should be a positive and encouraging one. That is what great presidents, like JFK and Reagan, used that platform for. The messages they made such positive impact to this country.

[dragonladywaltham]

03:37 PM on 01/25/2011

They were not facing the same issues and as DISRESPECTED as this president.

[Opygollopy]

04:05 PM on 01/25/2011

Hello - it is required that he make this SOTU every year. He doesn't attack people, he is the recipient of same - remember "Joe you lie Wilson" last year. Wilson showed such manners. Not.

Speaking of rallies, the GOP sure gets their vitriol going don't they, like every time they open their mouths. Shows a lot of intelligence, doesn't it. Right.

[allengoldchain]

04:53 PM on 01/03/2011

The same rule that applies to the SCOTUS should apply to the Congress attendees. This business of constantly cheering and taunting is ridiculous. The civility of last years SOTU was absolutely unacceptable.

[Jefferson Vickers]

03:59 PM on 01/25/2011

I do agree with you on that no matter if you like him or not he is the President you sit there and be respectful or stay home. As well this president has a bigger target of disrespect then I have ever seen on any person in congress. If Bachbat had firearms brandished at her at a rally or Bsh Co. had someone yell "you lied us into war" it would have been dealt with in quiet a different matter. There are still some people and places in this country that believe the President is different therefor not legit. He won a popular vote LARGER then the President crowned by the Supreams years ago. That makes him more legitimate then other administrations in the recent past.

[JacklynD]

03:37 PM on 12/13/2010

I am a little surprised as I thought that our Supreme Court was now a part of the Corporate Sector and divorced from the American people.

[Jefferson Vickers]

03:59 PM on 01/25/2011

The are make donation in care of TurdBlossum

[JFoxCPT]

02:56 PM on 12/13/2010

President Obama was right to speak out against Citizens United. They didn't have State of the Unions during the time of the Dread Scott decision. Would someone have been wrong to call that racist travesty out? But Citizens United approaches that level of wrong because of what it does to the integrity of this country and the spirit of democracy.

I'm glad Obama's comments got under Justice Alito's thin skin.

[allengoldchain]

04:54 PM on 01/03/2011

No he was wrong for doing that at the moment. That wasn't a campaign rally... Absolutely wrong for speaking out to an attendance that could not respond.

[Jefferson Vickers]

04:00 PM on 01/25/2011

But he was right and history shows now Koch and TBlossum own elections until the other side plays by those rules too.

[HawaiiShira]

05:16 PM on 01/25/2011

They had already responded by the decision they made. It is the President's responsibility to warn the citizens when he sees something that could threaten our democracy, and the appropriate place is the SOTUS. And, as it turns out, he was right. The amount of unbridled corporate money in our election process is a serious threat to our democracy (government for the people, by the people). The disinfectant of truth, no matter how painful, is healthy.

[Scott Zwartz]

01:28 PM on 12/13/2010

The court should open oral argument to video cameras if Beyer wants the people to understand how the courts operates. The default position for all trials and court hearings should be that they are open to video taping. When there are special circumstances, the default position can be modified.

Presently courts do their dirty work in secret beyond the prying eyes of the public. Attending the State of the Union is unwise. Does the President attend the opening session of the court? Do all the Congressmen attend attend the opening session of the Court? Do justices attend the first session in the House or the Senate each year? Why is it that the Supreme Court has to attend a special political speech?

Is the Court supposed to work together with the executive and legislative branches working out deals and compromises in order to arrive at its decisions in the way the President and Congress are supposed to work together?

[JacklynD]

03:40 PM on 12/13/2010

I'd like to see the visitor's sign in sheet for the corporate shills Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas.

[allengoldchain]

04:55 PM on 01/03/2011

how about checking out the visitors sheet going into the White house...

[Jefferson Vickers]

04:01 PM on 01/25/2011

The 4 Horseman ride again!

[RTIII]

08:16 PM on 12/17/2010

"Is the Court supposed to work together with the executive and legislativ­e branches working out deals and compromise­s in order to arrive at its decisions in the way the President and Congress are supposed to work together?"

Hell No!

The Supreme Court is supposed to have ZERO political conneciton. It is supposed to merely read the law and interpret it for purposes of resolving disputes brought to it to resolve disputes regarding the results of lower-court trials, giving due consideration to precedents set in the past as important sign-posts to an appropriate decision; they are supposed to avoid overturning a precedent whenever possible.

[Pup99]

12:38 PM on 12/13/2010

The interview was Chris Wallace trying to get in the face of Justice Breyer. Was like Palin trying to outsmart Obama.

[Eric Shun]

01:12 PM on 12/13/2010

did you see how Condi took Katie Couric apart - it was a joy to see... Katie looked like a 10 year old

[JacklynD]

03:45 PM on 12/13/2010

You mean did I see how Condi did not answer the question and lied? She merely protected her own self interests which is to say that there were reasons to go to war. There were not. Condi is a liar like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush.

[TheHandyman]

06:41 PM on 01/25/2011

You must also see ghosts and demons too, I imagine. I watched and that clearly isn't what happened. Condi did her usual change the subject, don't answer the question, or just flat out lie routine. But, as the say, there will always be people who see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear.

[sheeple herder]

10:59 AM on 12/13/2010

All of the branches of government should be present not because they have to give the illusion that they care. They should be present out of respect for the office of the president. If you do not agree with what he is saying, do not participate in the 5 minutes ovations. Regardless of your beliefs and whether you like the individual you should still respect the position that he occupies.

I think we should be less alarmed by the fact that some do not want to show and more by the fact that some believe that the public can be duped by simply seeing their smiling faces on TV. Actions like these underline the true problem with our government. The fact that people view their elected positions as soap boxes instead of mechanisms to better the country. If you can't respect another person's office you obviously don't respect your own.

Checks and balances are flying out the window as we speak.

[RedStateCenterLeft]

10:41 AM on 12/13/2010

He's right. Good job, Mr. Justice.

[katylied]

10:29 AM on 12/13/2010

Never before has this been an issue. What are they afraid of? Is there a tea party scheduled on the same night or something? Gawd, what a bunch of h_8-ers.....

[dragonladywaltham]

03:43 PM on 01/25/2011

Disrespect for a president for the FIRST time. I wonder why?

[logic63]

10:17 AM on 12/13/2010

Justice Ginsberg should resign this year so that we can get her replacement while we have a mostly democrat president. The court doesn't need another roberts or scalia

[WSAY]

10:41 AM on 12/13/2010

Except that I'm afraid Obama would nominate a conservative just to make the Republicans happy.

[Tom Sutpen]

11:21 AM on 12/13/2010

I'm certain he would.

[Eric Shun]

01:11 PM on 12/13/2010

That would be great!