I agree with Glenn Greenwald that "the behavior of Justice Alito at [Wednesday] night's State of the Union address -- visibly shaking his head and mouthing the words 'not true' when Obama warned of the dangers of the Court's Citizens United ruling -- was a serious and substantive breach of protocol that reflects very poorly on Alito and only further undermines the credibility of the Court. It has nothing to do with etiquette and everything to do with the Court's ability to adhere to its intended function."
And this is why Supreme Court justices, if they can't control themselves, probably shouldn't attend these events.
More Greenwald -- essential reading:
There's a reason that Supreme Court Justices -- along with the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- never applaud or otherwise express any reaction at a State of the Union address. It's vital -- both as a matter of perception and reality -- that those institutions remain apolitical, separate and detached from partisan wars. The Court's pronouncements on (and resolutions of) the most inflammatory and passionate political disputes retain legitimacy only if they possess a credible claim to being objectively grounded in law and the Constitution, not political considerations. The Court's credibility in this regard has -- justifiably -- declined substantially over the past decade, beginning with Bush v. Gore (where 5 conservative Justices issued a ruling ensuring the election of a Republican President), followed by countless 5-4 decisions in which conservative Justices rule in a way that promotes GOP political beliefs, while the more "liberal" Justices do to the reverse (Citizens United is but the latest example). Beyond that, the endless, deceitful sloganeering by right-wing lawyers about "judicial restraint" and "activism" -- all while the judges they most revere cavalierly violate those "principles" over and over -- exacerbates that problem further (the unnecessarily broad scope of Citizens United is the latest example of that, too, and John "balls and strikes" Roberts may be the greatest hypocrite ever to sit on the Supreme Court). All of that is destroying the ability of the judicial branch to be perceived -- and to act -- as one of the few truly apolitical and objective institutions.
Justice Alito's flamboyantly insinuating himself into a pure political event, in a highly politicized manner, will only hasten that decline.
I'm not terribly enraged by what Alito did, I must admit, but of course his inappropriate mouthing off is part of a much larger problem:
What's most disturbing here is the increasing trend of right-wing Justices inserting themselves ever more aggressively into overtly political disputes in a way that seriously undermines their claims of apolitical objectivity.
*****It was clear from Sam Alito's confirmation hearing and his record of appellate opinions that he is a dogmatic, state-revering, right-wing judge. But last night, he unmasked himself as a politicized and intemperate Republican as well.
Now, it's not that we're all too "squeamish," as Jonathan Chait suggests. It's one thing for overt partisans like Joe Wilson to mouth off, quite another for a Supreme Court justice to do so (if inaudibly). We don't expect politicians to be neutral and objective, but we do expect the men and women who sit on the highest court in the land not to be outwardly partisan, that is, to express their partisanship in public. We may know that they are partisans, or at least that they have political views, but we want them to put their professional objectives first.
It hardly matters that Alito was right. Sort of. (Linda Greenhouse notes that while Obama's statement that the Court "reversed a century of law" in "open[ing] the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign companies -- to spend without limit in our elections" was incorrect, strictly speaking, "the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well -- although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions.") The point is that Alito both should have known better and represents a disturbing trend in the conservative judiciary, the emergence, and dominance, of partisan right-wing activism in support of the Republican Party.
Inappropriate though it was, are we really at all surprised that Alito, or someone like him, mouthed off?
(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)
Follow Michael J.W. Stickings on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjwstickings
And you guys would have never know Alito even shoke his head if the camaras weren't on him at the time.
I think it was a bad show by the Pres and by the Dems that clapped over the top of the jugdes showing them little or no respect.
Not that I agree with the more liberal justices all the time either but the "big 4" conservative justices consistently miss the point of the formation of the republic in the first place, which was to protect the little guy against the tyranny of an all-powerful government.
A position on a question of law and politics that is shared by four supreme court justices and the president is certain to be 'tenable' at a bare minimum.
In contrast, a seat opn the supreme court bench is expected to be a non-political job. It's incumbants are expected to maintain the dignity of the court, and to refrain from partisan politics.
Obama was right to point out how the court decision was political and the political ramifications their decision has on our votes.
Even some Republicans are surprised and upset with the court decision.
Once the decision has been made every citizen including the President has the right to speak.
The ruling should be overturned because it allows undue influence to be lobbied at elected officials creating a higher possiblity of corruption therefore denying citizens their rights by affecting their votes.
We vote for politicians to act on our behalf for our interests.
If the court made a bad decision that creates a climate of corruption by allowing certain campaign donations to resume, then the best interests of the public are no longer served.
If a politician is proved to have taken the money and voted against the constituents what recourse do "we the people" have unless the President speaks out for us?
The President has every right to bash a Supreme Court ruling, but the State of the Union is not the appropriate venue. Just as Joe Wilson has every right to call Obama a liar, but joint sessions of Congress are not the appropriate venue.
We either keep our judicial system and politics separate, or we enter an age of "Justice tempered by whatever political opinions I have." Look at that sentence and decide if that's how you want your justice system to work.
I'm all for impeaching the man for destroying democracy and my vote.
First off, The Supreme Court made a mistake and their justification for 'free speech' in regards to corporate entities is deplorable. Even though 'on paper' corporations may have the same rights as individuals this is clearly a law that needs updating. Corporations have no mortality and even more alarming their 1st order of business is profit. I've never meet any living thing that when born their first order of business is profit. So clearly the supreme court made a decision based on 'old world' logic that really has no place in the 21st century.
Secondly, Foreign interests have been lobbying congress and the white house for decades to get contracts, aid and whatever political agenda they could muster. Many times these countries set up corporate entities in the US specificly to lobby our government.
So please get the facts straight before your 'political' bias gets in the way of common sense and good old fashion home work.
--
Hey, did you notice the composure of the judge sitting next to him? I thought that was very revealing and even more convincing that Alito's behavior was dispicable and disrespectful.
Just my thoughts
I have no doubt that somewhere, his wife went into an unprovoked hysterical crying fit.
At least the liberal courts increased freedoms and protections for Americans, the conservative courts are dragging us back onto era of all powerful arbitary and cruel monarchs.