Historian: After President’s “Insult,” Won’t Be Surprised SCOTUS Doesn’t Attend Next SOTU

ABC News ^ | January 28, 2010 | Jake Tapper

[2ndDivisionVet]

A noted Supreme Court historian who “enthusiastically” voted for President Obama in November 2008 today called President Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address last night “really unusual” and said he wouldn’t be surprised if no Supreme Court Justices attend the speech next year.

“It was really unusual in my mind to see the president going after the Supreme Court in such a forum,” said author and Law Professor Lucas Powe, the Anne Green Regents Chair in Law, and a Professor of Government at the University of Texas-Austin School of Law. “I’m willing to bet a lot of money there will be no Supreme Court justice at the next State of the Union speech.”

Added Professor Powe, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice William Douglas, “you don’t go to be insulted. I can’t see the Justices wanting to be there and be insulted by the president.” His opinion has nothing to do with animus towards the President, for whom Powe said he voted enthusiastically.

President Obama took the apparently unprecedented step of assailing a Supreme Court decision in his speech last night, saying, “with all due deference to separation of powers, last week 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. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that corrects some of these problems."(continued)

[2ndDivisionVet]

Not only that, but start deciding more cases in ways he won't like. Then what's he going to do?

[FlingWingFlyer]

SCOTUS should not have to sit there and take a bunch of BS from a cheap, Chicago thug.

[omega4179]

All they have to do is accept one nativity case.

[SevenofNine]

If I was Supreme court justice I be going okay I won’t attend next time

He is Chicago Thug in my opinion not only that very rude I never hear other US president totally dissing US Supremes like that in my lifetime

Maybe among Older Freepers maybe you hear it not in my lifetime

[bvw]

Obama will not be there, the Justices will be.

[La Lydia]

Our president is a arrogant, vulgar bore. And he is not a gentleman.

[Churchillspirit]

No one ever accused The Kenyan of having any class.

[Earthdweller]

Really...this had to be one of the worst abuses of power that I have seen in my lifetime. He is infringing on every last living authority in a reckless, destructive path, way overstepping his bounds.

[RetiredArmy]

I think all the republicans should refuse to go to the Marxist’s Party meeting also. I did not watch it. I have never listened to the thug say more than three words, as quick as my trigger finger can change the channel, he’s off. He has nothing I want too hear. Oh, except, “I quit,” “I conceed that Mrs. Palin has kicked my sorry tan ass and I have lost the White House.” Those two I would listen too, over and over and over again!

[KrisKrinkle]

I was thinking they should have walked out, but then sometimes something startles you so much that you don’t think of the right response till it’s too late.

[skeeter]

Its the SCOTUS’s fault for expecting the president to behave like something besides an unusually articulate street punk.

[TigersEye]

President Wrong on Citizens United Case [Bradley A. Smith]

Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind.

— Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School

[ThePatriotsFlag]

One does wonder, if the court has “equal power” to the executive branch, what, if anything, they could do. They couldn’t “bias” a case to get him ‘back’. What recourse would they have for such vulgarity?

[Nateman]

I don’t think Scalia or Thomas was there. Good for them!

[reefdiver]

Schumer was a disgrace

[Question Liberal Authority]

Obama has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.

[arthurus]

I believe FDR had a lot of harsh words for the Court of his day and made his “court packing” threats to mitigate the reactionary influence of the “Nine Old Men.” President Soetoro isn’t the first.

[BigLittle]

[jusduat]

Obama also announced an end run around congress by setting up a committee they rejected. He believes that he is the ultimate power and who’s to stop him?

[caseinpoint]

When his healthcare reform bill, if it passes, (not to mention his entire agenda) goes before the court and loses, he will claim it was personal animus against him. He will claim the SCOTUS is institutionally racist and goad his remaining supporters to find ways to gut the SCOTUS power, maybe even burn down the Reichstag, er, Supreme Court building. I don’t underestimate his prospective defensive moves against SCOTUS.