Chief Justice Roberts: Obama's Attack on the Supreme Court at SOTU Was "Very Troubling" (Video)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 8:27 AM
Chief Justice Roberts responded this week to the unprecedented attack by Barack Obama on the Supreme Court at the State of the Union Address this year.
Via BreitbartTV:
Chief Justice Roberts: “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. And, it does cause me to think if it makes sense for us to be there.”
Barack Obama attacked the Supreme Court during his State of the Union Address this year:
Justice Alito disagreed.
For the record… When Obama attacked the Supreme Court at his hyper-partisan State of the Union address he relied on an old Jim Crow law to make his point.
Via Rhymes With Right:
Yeah, that is right. Barack Obama stood before the people of the United States and praised legislation introduced by a fellow Democrat who preceded him in the US Senate, one of the most vile enemies of African-Americans to ever serve in the United States Senate, a despicable man who owed his election to public office to his participation in an armed assault upon a body of black soldiers during Reconstruction and the lynching of several of these soldiers, and a dangerous demagogue who was censured for his physical assault of another Senator on the floor of the US Senate and barred from the White House over the incident.
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Republican Military Hero & First Female to Command Fighter Squadron Will Announce Run For Congress Today
Published February 8, 2012 at 8:42 pm - 89 Comments
Chisum commented:
Well said! Chief Justice Roberts is an honorable man. BO…not so much.
neomom commented:
The first thing I do when I need someone’s help to get something done is insult and theaten them. This President is a dangerous Idiot. This country needs eight more like Justice Roberts.
Betsy Ross commented:
Barak Obama is nothing more than a Grinch with a tiny, tiny heart…
Someone who wants to take away our Freedom and replace it with Slavery to the State….
Male Silverback commented:
I would have thrown my shoe at him. I hope this guy Obama is so beat down and defeated by 2012 he will be too embarrassed to show up at the inauguration. What an utter failure he is.
Opus #6 commented:
That attack certainly was troubling. I see no reason why the Supreme Court needs to sit through these types of pep rallies.
Maureen Martin commented:
Great thanks to Jim Hoft for posting this. The very fact of Justice Roberts’ need to call attention to Obama’s demagogic use of the State of the Union speech is itself troubling. It is a red flag that alerts us to the severity of the crisis this country faces under a malpracticing president.
Roberts’ speech warrants wide distribution for the warning that it is.
Dell commented:
With their own parties president at the podium, Obama and the Democrats felt emboldened to lash out and that’s exactly what they did!
The Supreme Court ruled and they didn’t like the result, so they break all of the rules of decorum and turn the entire issue into a street fight on national television.
Roberts – and the individual members of the court – have an issue to address come the SOTU address in ’11. Show up and subject themselves to even more childish criticism or opt out of a joint session of Congress.
Roberts – and the court – WILL be there, because anything less would be lowering themselves to the same level as the thug on the podium.
He has said his piece and Obama is well aware of the Chief Justice’s opinion and clout, but I wouldn’t expect an identical “smiling photo op” next time around.
Floradora commented:
Kudos to Chief Justice Roberts for addressing this. Obama was disgraceful for attacking SCOTUS during the SOTU. What a petulant, angry, immature bully he is. I can’t wait for the day when he is knocked off his pedestal and falls so hard to the ground, he’ll have to look around for all of his teeth. WHEN (not if) he’s ousted in 2012, I will do everything in my power to go to D.C. and give him the proper verbal send off he deserves…
Chisum commented:
BO is at (-21) at Rasmussen’s approval rating poll today.
Way to go!
Patman commented:
When will shoe throwing become acceptable at these POTUS events?
jainphx commented:
Obama messed up in his swearing in, and had to do it again, he and the spin blamed Roberts. Does this guy ever make a mistake, or is it always someone else’s fault. He has yet to give anything but blame to Bush, America, Republicans, and anyone else that is better than him.
nickless commented:
It was Chavez-esque, is what it was.
Atlanta Media Guy commented:
I hope he fails! Fails and falls hard so his teeth do get knocked out. Then he’ll be able to wear his sisters false teeth. This guy is a running gag that is so bad for this country. When will the lame stream media wake up to this FAKE!
down with dems commented:
Obama has already given a big F-YOU to the Supreme Court and Congress, threatening to do with executive order anything that Congress won’t pass or the Supreme Court won’t allow. This tyrant-wannabe can’t fall soon enough.
jainphx #12, Ace ( http://ace.mu.nu/archives/297344.php ) once amusingly described Obama’s perfection like this:
” Obama’s like Reverse Jesus. You will, collectively, assume his sins so that he is cleansed and untainted.*
* Yes, I know there’s another word for “Reverse Jesus.” “
Rosemary Woodhouse commented:
Separate but equal. So, when is congress, or SCOTUS going to denounce the Executive Branch (i.e.: Obama)?
aprilnovember811 commented:
Absolutely. It was repugnant, and typical Obama behavior. It’s like inviting someone to your home for dinner, and then attacking them as they sit there. The Supreme Court was ambushed, and if I were them, I would never go again.
Hopefully if Obama’s eligibility gets to them again, they will have seen enough, for them to realize, he is lying about his birthplace, and citizenship, like he lies about everything else. Although many would have you believe, he lies about everything but his birthplace and citizenship. Yes, on that issue he is telling the truth. If so, just show us. I don’t take the word of a serial liar, anymore than I take the word of a serial killer.
Simon commented:
Yeah and why weren’t we allowed in at the official swearing-in the next day? Besides the Koran and stuff…
…this would have never happened – Birther warning here – had Justice Roberts used his powers back then to rule Barry Soetoro/Barack Dunham/Barack Hussein (remember when we couldn’t say his taboo yet sanctified middle name?) Obama ineligible.
He didn’t need a birth certificate beyond Obama’s website to do that. They could resolve this, but they won’t touch it, I’m sure for good reason. Still, it’s an out.
Militant Conservative commented:
Never ever piss off a federal Judge, they have lifetime appointments. Barry, you have an expiration date. We are gonna try to remove you before that though. If not, WE WILL make you irrelivant. LOL
Robert commented:
The Democrats in Congress jeering at the Supreme Court justices, while at the same time cannot even debate on point for their signature proposal, says much about them, and their supporters. Obama is leading the nation into a political form and decorum that is below that of Third-World hooligans.
If this keeps up, we will be looking to Iraq
for examples of proper democratic behavior.
Valerie commented:
BO is easily as brilliant as John F. Kerry.
I remember when the same people that told us how impressive BO is were saying the same about that intellectual giant, J F’in K, and how dumb George Bush is. All that fell apart when, among very many other things, Kerry’s college transcript was finally disclosed, and surprise!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2005-06-10-benedetto_x.htm
Same for Gore.
Anybody want to take any bets that BO didn’t go all the way down to academic probation levels in undergraduate school?
George Bush’s transcripts were available years ago. John McCain’s campaign released his citizenship papers when BO’s campaign raised the issue.
Right now, none of this matters, much. BO got elected. But the examples of John Kerry and Al Gore should be brought up every time anybody says BO is brilliant.
bg commented:
++
Converter in Chief
==
bg commented:
++
gah!! clicked post too fast..
re: bg #22
note he gives the “finger” right on cue again..
==
Major Kong commented:
I would not bet the farm that the Supreme Court will be at the next SOTU. Obama has already violated the protocol with his smack-down. By appearing the Court lends legitimacy to this nakedly partisan dog and pony show. Perhaps Soto Mayer would show, but I think the other eight are rather impressed by the gravity of the office they hold. I I’d like to think that the left of center justices are hoping against hope to hang on long enough to outlast the two-bit punk in the White House, as even they can see how potentially ruinous it would be for him to get any more nominations.
kato commented:
Everything about the arrogant liar is “troubling.”
bg commented:
++
one of the most vile enemies of African-Americans
here’s the other one..
==
StrangernFiction commented:
Owebama is not the anti-christ, but it’s not for a lack of trying.
M-ike commented:
Is no one here even concerned with the ruling passed down from the SCOTUS that Obama (albeit inappropriately) rebuked?
The court ruled that corporations have no limits on campaign contributions to political parties or individuals.
On the day of this ruling, we ceased to be a country of “we the people”. Our country died, to the dismay of you, me, and our children
S. Wolf commented:
bg #26
And the other..
Lynching Republicans
“Otherwise known as the forgotten supressed history of the Democrat party: following the Civil War, 1300 white Republicans and 3500 black Republicans were lynched by the Ku Klux Klan.”
S. Wolf commented:
M-ike #29
Bullcrap.
BarbaraS commented:
All I can say is that if the dims don’t like that SCOTUS ruling, it must be bad for them and good for the country. Whenever they are against something, I am definitely for it because everything they are for is detrimental to the country..
Aussie commented:
@Mike,
actually you are the liar and a troll. I have indeed read the actual document written by the Supreme Court.
The decision that was made does NOT give corporations the right to pour in millions of dollars to candidates. In fact it did not strike down the provisions relating to foreign corporations. That provision still exists and foreign corporations cannot give donations.
It is a pity that the 507s were not struck down at the same time, but that was not the issue before the court.
For the edification of people reading here, if you have not read a copy of the judgment then I suggest that you drag a copy off the Internet and read it for yourself.
The primary issue in the case was related to the First Amendment. Citizens United lost on several counts in that decision. However, it succeeded in getting a decision that was a basic fundamental right to free speech.
It is worth reiterating the actual case: that the group produced a film on Hillary Clinton. They wanted to show the documentary on cable TV inside the 60 days. The documentary was highly critical of Hillary Clinton. The FEC said NO to the request, because Citizens United had obtained a very small amount of funding from a corporation.
It is also worth noting that a corporation is still made up of citizens, and in can include any kind of group that decides to incorporate including doll clubs, knitting clubs, train clubs… you name it.. and get the picture. The club is the corporation and the corporation has officers, including a public officer.
Under McCain-Feingold a corporation e.g. Merck could not give a donation to a candidate. However, officers of Merck could give donations. (this is just an example only). They could create a PAC or the 507 and through the 507 they could give donations to political parties. The 507 has been working to mask the true identity of the donor.
Now, prior to the 2008 Presidential election Obama brought in more than $600million in donations through the PACs. People such as George Soros donated millions of dollars by using all of these entities to make their donations. On top of that large sums were donated from overseas, even though this is illegal. (Do you think, that I, a foreigner would donate to either party? The answer is NO because first it is not my business and second it is illegal for me to do that). In other words, Obama was a very big beneficiary of this particular system.
Corporations have a right to free speech, which is basically the decision that was made in Citizens United. They have the same right to free speech as the media. What McCain-Feingold was doing was denying the right to free speech for non-media corporations. The troubling aspect for the Supreme Court that led them to strike down the one clause in McCain-Feingold was in fact the penalties that applied if any person or corporation defied the FEC. This was the issue under consideration in the Citizens United case. If Citizens United had defied the FEC they could have been fined. The fine is a penalty provision – a mandate – and it was on this ground that the majority opinion ruled to strike down s144(b) of the McCain-Feingold act.
In other words, what you have been hearing from the White House is BS of the highest order.
bg commented:
++
S. Wolf @ 2:53 pm #30
wow, as old as i am, i still learn something new every day, thanks..
i knew they mowed down Republicans, but not about the lynchings..
amazing how this dark secret is still virtually unknown to the public..
as are the following..
The Truth May Inconvenience Our Perceptions
[Indeed, I have a videotape of black historian, Dr. Edward Smith of American University in Washington D.C., in which he points out that at least 90,000 blacks served under arms in the Confederate armies. This long ignored, or silently suppressed fact is only now beginning to reach the public where it can help to alter our perceptions of the realities which existed in the Old South. It might be worth noting that in the Southern armies, black and white men were not segregated as they were in the Northern armies. They fought side by side with fellow Southerners. In support of this fact, perhaps you are not aware that the first military monument in Washington D.C. honoring black soldiers is in Arlington National Cemetery near the Custis-Lee Mansion. Erected in 1914 by Moses Ezekial, a Jewish Confederate who wanted to correctly portray the racial realities in the Southern armies, it clearly shows a black soldier marching in step with his white comrades in arms. It further portrays the trust that existed between them by depicting a black woman receiving a white soldier’s child for protection as he is going off to war. Somehow, this Confederate monument is never pointed out on the usual tours that you’ll get up there. Does anyone think they might know why?
[..]
We must come to understand that slavery can come in many forms and under many names. It may still be of a physical nature, best represented today perhaps by imprisonment. What kind of a society imprisons 2 million of its people? Is not media propaganda, government indoctrination of our school children, and mandatory sensitivity training a form of intellectual or mental slavery? Can’t we become slaves to our passions, our fears, or any series of misconceptions and falsehoods on which we act? Can we not be legislated into slavery, or simply taxed into it? If many blacks recoil in horror at the thought of tens of thousands of black Confederates fighting and dying under the Confederate Battle Flag 135 years ago, it may just show the extent of their indoctrination, their alienation with the past, and the magnitude of the challenge Southerners face in ending racial hostility.]
Black Slave Owners
[In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).
According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.]
==
bg commented:
++
Aussie @ 5:07 pm #34
No. 08–205.
thank you..
==
Valerie commented:
I knew McCain was old, but I didn’t know that Mr. Feingold was that old.
And, I sure am not that old.
So how could a 2010 ruling holding a portion of McCain-Feingold be a reversal of a century of precedent?
Wasn’t McCain-Feingold an unprecedented new law having to do with campaign financing? Passed in 2002, trying to deal with new problems that had shown up in the 1996 elections?
So how could the reversal of one section of that eight-year-old law “wipe out a century of precedent,” much less “open the floodgates” of anything?
Chief Justice Roberts characterized the President’s actions as “a political pep rally” — that’s a statement in judge dialect that translates into Chicago Thug dialect as “f***ing pack of lies.”
Solaratov commented:
M-ike
March 10th, 2010 | 2:44 pm | #29
Is no one here even concerned with the ruling passed down from the SCOTUS that Obama (albeit inappropriately) rebuked?
The court ruled that corporations have no limits on campaign contributions to political parties or individuals.
************************************************************
No. That’s not what the ruling said at all.
It merely said that corporations were allowed to donate to candidates – *with the same campaign finance limitations as indivuduals*. Just as there are limits on what a person can donate, so there are limits on what a corporation can donate directly to a candidate’s campaign fund.
What d;ohbama and other losers are so twisted about is that – just as for individuals – there are no limits on donations to a PAC; nor are there limits on ads that can be bought by individuals or corporations.
And, don’t even start in on “foreign corporations” donating. That part of the law was not even in question and was not addressed by the court. That part of the law stands as it was.
(Though, from d’ohbama’s acceptance of foreign donations {$35,000 from two brothers in Gaza and $50,000 from Hamas, to name but two instances}, d’ohbama cannot *really* object to foreign money coming into campaigns, now can he?)
S. Wolf commented:
bg #35
Thanks for those. Still learning too.
Solaratov commented:
Valerie
March 10th, 2010 | 7:18 pm | #37
He was referring to the Tillman law against corporations donating – which was written by on of the most despicable racists in congress at the time.
The law was written because Tillman – and others – worried that corporations would donate to candidates who would try to overturn the jim crow laws and give more rights to negroes
They didn’t care about “unfair” donations. They only cared about keeping the negro “in his place”.
This is the law that d’ohbama refers to and defends so staunchly.
Peg Bogukci commented:
That was the most disgraceful acts of an American President that I ever witnessed. As a New Yorker I also found it especially embarrassing to watch our nitwit Senator Schumer, directing behind the Supreme Court Justices, clapping and smiling like a cheerleader. I cringed at what the President did to those justices in front of the whole country. He has been an embarrassment to this country since the day he took office. I can not wait until 2012.