Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Chief Justice Roberts is a big crybaby

The chief justice is a big crybaby.

To listen to John Roberts, you'd think that mobs of pitchfork-waving Democrats had accosted a handful of trembling justices and demanded that they reverse themselves on the spot -- or else. Speaking to law students at the University of Alabama, Roberts said anyone is free to criticize the court. Except, apparently, not to the justices' faces.

"There is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum," he said. "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 to the requirements of protocol -- has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

But why? Surely Roberts doesn't think that the justices are about to be intimidated by some congressional applause -- or even a law professor-turned-president criticizing their ruling. The State of the Union address is the occasion to discuss the most important issues facing the country. The Supreme Court ruling that President Obama said "reversed a century of law" and threatened to "open the floodgates for special interests...to spend without limit in our elections" certainly fits that bill. It was appropriate for the president to use the occasion to call on Congress to craft a legislative response to the decision -- even in the presence of its authors.

Earlier, explaining why he is a no-show at the address, Justice Clarence Thomas cited the controversy over Justice Samuel Alito's head-shaking response to Obama's remarks. "One of the consequences is now the court becomes part of the conversation, if you want to call it that," Thomas said. Good: the court is and should be part of the conversation.

Ronald Reagan, albeit in a less confrontational way, criticized the court's abortion-rights rulings in several State of the Union addresses. "To those who say this violates a woman's right to control of her own body: Can they deny that now medical evidence confirms the unborn child is a living human being entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" he said in 1988 -- with members of the court that disagreed with him sitting right there. For good measure, Reagan took a shot at the court's rulings on school prayer and called for a constitutional amendment on that subject, as well as on abortion.

The State of the Union is, as Roberts sniffed, part "political pep rally" -- with the opposing teams each participating in their rival cheers. But it is also a ceremonial, even magisterial occasion of state, attended by members of the diplomatic corps and the joint chiefs of staff. It is fine for some members of the audience to cheer and incumbent on others to keep a poker face.

In his forthcoming book, "Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court," former Bill Clinton speechwriter Jeff Shesol describes how Roosevelt toned down the confrontational language that appeared in earlier drafts but still used his 1937 State of the Union address to take the court to task for blocking New Deal legislation. "The judicial branch also is asked by the people to do its part in making democracy successful," Roosevelt said. "The process of our democracy must not be imperiled by the denial of essential powers of free government."

Roosevelt, Shesol writes, was disappointed to look up and see that none of the justices were present. Apparently tipped off, or fearing that they would be the target of presidential criticism, they stayed away -- as Roberts might next year.

That would, I think, be a mistake. If conservative justices boycott a Democratic president's State of the Union address, who, then, will be politicizing the court?

By Ruth Marcus  | March 11, 2010; 1:40 PM ET
Categories:  Marcus  | Tags:  Ruth Marcus  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Al-Qaeda seven were serving justice
Next: Reconciliation is in trouble

Comments

I'm sick of these holier-than-thou Justices, who lie to the Senate to get confirmed.

Posted by: JohnnyU2Berry | March 11, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Who pays Mr. Roberts' salary?

Posted by: vigor | March 11, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

It may be that he is a cry-baby but Obama has no class dressing down the highest court in the land in public in order to score a few political points!

Posted by: rostermaier | March 11, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

A:

The American Citizen, Voter, Taxpayer.

Does he represent the above?

I don't think so.

Posted by: vigor | March 11, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

It may be that he is a cry-baby but Obama has no class dressing down the highest court in the land in public in order to score a few political points!

Posted by: rostermaier | March 11, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse
==========================================

Are you prepared to say the same thing about the late President Reagan? Both President Reagan and President Obama were well within their rights to call out the "High Court" if they disagreed with their respective rulings. It is their forum afterall.

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 11, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Why do the justices or the military have to be there in the first place? This spectacle called "The State of the Union" has evolved into a pep rally where the president's party hoots and hollers while the opposition sits stoically in front of the cameras.

It's pure political theater devoid of any real content. Then we hear the mind-numbing speech of the opposition shortly afterward. I say do what Jefferson did - send the congress a report in writing and save everybody a lot of time.

Posted by: deacon777 | March 11, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Not to mention, he was pinch-hitting for Sam Alito.

Posted by: pKrishna43 | March 11, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Ruth, did you just call Judge Roberts a "crybaby"? How did you get a job at a respected paper like the Washington Post? Agree or disagree with Chief Justice Roberts, this is shameful and unprofessional of you.

Posted by: daninny | March 11, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

We hear how Obama criticized the decision. Read the transcript.

All he did was state what he thought the EFFECTS of the ruling would be. And that's the fact that BIG MONEY will have a field day in upcoming campaigns.

And remember, money is speech, according to an earlier SC ruling.

Great song on the subject at
ReverbNation.com/leajones (BIG MONEY - FOR JOHN ROBERTS)

Posted by: leajones99 | March 11, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

He got big-headed and thought he was GOD...when he saw so many articles calling the SCOUS...The Robert's Court!

NOT.........CRY-BABY!!!!

Posted by: dove369 | March 11, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

What is shameful or unprofessional about calling Roberts a crybaby? She's only telling the truth. He IS a crybaby, and a lot of other things as well, a lot of them not printable in a public discussion forum.

It's amazing that he ever got through law school, being so thin-skinned and all.

I wish Roberts, Alito et al took their lumps more publicly, more often. Maybe they'd realize how angry more than 80% of the populace is over their Citizens United decision.

Posted by: chi-town | March 11, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Justice Roberts is correct in his characterization of the "State of the Union." Ms. Marcus is entirely incorrect of her characterization of Justice Roberts. It would be interesting to see these two debate. Somehow I know who would win.

Posted by: maus92 | March 11, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama DID lie when he criticized the SCOTUS - where have you people been - under a frackin log?

Marcus - I don't see anyone hiring you as Judge on the SCOTUS...

And there is such a thing as decorum and respect...something Obama knows nothing about. He relishes any opportunity to be rude, condescending...all the while - the truth about his mediocre abilities academic accomplishments are under lock and key.

Posted by: easttxisfreaky | March 11, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Again, the Obama White House shows its true colors. They are not presidential, not even civil. They are jerks of the lowest order.

Posted by: amazd | March 11, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

One of the functions of the state of the union address is to show Americans (and people around the world) that the people that govern call all sit in the same room and listen to the president speak.

That includes those that disagree with him.

As silly as that may sound, its hardly the norm around the world. And even with the lapses in decorum (how come it always from the right?), its still represents a standard that sets this country apart.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | March 11, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

you must have been eating and missed it.
look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deGg41IiWwU and watch boy hussein criticize the court - his guests at the state of the union and then watch the congress stand up around the justices, who are required to sit without showing emotion as the dems in congress cheer and applaud criticism of the court.
its bad form, bad taste and in fact boy did not get the opinion right.
so tubby - have another donut and shut up.

Posted by: infantry11b4faus | March 11, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Crybaby indeed!
Oh and btw - corporations are NOT people.

Posted by: angie12106 | March 11, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

The liberal maggots are out in force displaying their ignorance again

Posted by: ArlingtonHokie | March 11, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Why is it ok for the teleprompter-reading monkey to lie and lie and lie; but not ok for the SCOTUS to voice an honest opinion? Please pull your head out of Oblama's but and write a decent article. FU!

Posted by: mgrantham2 | March 11, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

I'm not an Obama fan, but his addresses are an exercise of First Amendment rights and he shouldn't have to be concerned about who might be offended by this or that remark. I am sure many Republicans sitting before him as well as many in the American public sitting in front of their televisions were offended by Obama remarks as well. The Supremes are not required to attend the State of the Union address, and three of them didn't. Any of the Supremes who did attend the address and were offended by Obama's remarks need not attend future addresses. But that won't stop "offensive" remarks nonetheless being made.

Posted by: MylesSchulberg | March 11, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Obama said they reversed a century of law, which is not true. The rulling was narrow, and has been mischaracterized grossly. Obama should know better as Illinois allows corprate voices, and they have not had the impacts he predicts.

Reagans' criticism was far more justified since the reasoning the court used was a total extra-constitutional fabrication. Being a gentleman who understood the setting, he toned it down.

FDR was a schmuck when it came to the court. In reality, his ego was much like Obama's and his threats to the court were abusive of our checks and balances. His appointments were worse.

I look forward to more corporate voices, to offset the garbage corrupt corporations like the WAPO spew.

Posted by: SayWhat4 | March 11, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

I don't like Roberts and I really don't like the court's campaign funding decision that Obama criticized. But Roberts was nonetheless correct to object to Obama's treatment of the court members who were there. It is rude to criticize someone who is in your presence but who can't answer you. Members of Congress can answer -- they can run off to their TV studios and have at Obama almost immediately, as many did. But the court can't answer because it should not be political and because by an important and very valuable tradition -- one arguably adopted in the Constitution -- a court speaks only in its opinions and only in response to briefing and argument in cases before it. Court members attend the State of the Union speech by some kind of tradition, perhaps ill advised but it exists. If the court members want to hold to their traditional roles they have to sit there -- but they should not have to take attacks because they can't dish them out in response.
The comparison to Reagan is partly apt. Marcus seems to think that she has a gotcha because Obama is a liberal and Reagan was a conservative -- that anyone who'd say that Obama was wrong would try to wiggle out of saying such a thing about Reagan -- which shows how far everything has been politicized, even in her mind as a lawyer. Just as she is insensitive to rudeness, so she is insensitive to principle. Reagan was also wrong to complain about a judicial decision in front of those who'd participated in it, although it can be said that by 1988 the Roe v. Wade decision was almost 15 years old and was a full fledged political issue.
If you believe that the court has become too politicized, as it has, and that that's a very bad result, then the answer is not to assert, as Marcus does, that they ought to recognize and accept that they are part of the political process.

Posted by: danjose | March 11, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Corporations with the free speech of individuals can easily be stopped, tax them as individuals when they reach previous limits in Ways and Means as a tax table trigger. I give Roberts a pass until he decides to overrule IL state law in the Chicago gun case. I think the 2nd Amendment is clear about the qualifier regulated militias to the individual right. Roberts was not part of the Gore 2000 decision where the SCOTUS overruled FL state election law and did not have a superceding Federal law to void it. The rest sadly will still sit there without admonishment for the Gore decision. Roberts does favor the corporations more than a Sotomayor, but even Scalia questioned himself in the Gore decision. Had it gone the other way, I may have ruled differently I believe he said. Roberts does believe in a right to privacy whereas Thomas and Alito do not.

Posted by: jameschirico | March 11, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Marcus is again intellectually dishonest. Reagan's admonition was not directed specifically at the court, but, rather, at the position of those who support abortion rights.

One of the great disappointments that comes from reading commentary in the Post is the large number of columnists who are incapable or unwilling to offer honest, cogent arguments. Instead we have to suffer through ad hominem laden tantrums. Truly pathetic.

Posted by: BlueIguana | March 11, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Roberts needs to realize that when you've got a job that's guaranteed for a lifetime and pays $217,400, there's a possibility that you'll be called on to do a few things that you might prefer not to do. And when the court rules that corporations are the same as people, the president and Congress may well seek to make them uncomfortable before they decide to give corporations the vote.

Posted by: jlhare1 | March 11, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Criticism of the Supreme Court (in ANY venue) is one of the most imoportant checks on the court. Justices are appointed for life as long as they are on good behavior. Nowhere else in our government is that kind of power vested in any officeholder. Many times in our history the all-powerful court embarked on a path that didn't meet with the approval of "the people". Franklin Roosevelt erred in trying to pack the court. But the storm that he created actually resulted in a more moderate court in the years that followed. The trouble with the court today is that there is not nearly enough public comment on their activities because it is difficult for the average citizen to comprehend how decisions may affect them.

Posted by: spud9454 | March 11, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Come on Ruthy,
Chuck Schumer lookled like the idiot he is when he stood behind the justices clapping like a frat boy at a basketball game. Liberals have no shame including you. Were you equally outraged when Bush was booed on several occasion when addressing Congress? Silly little Liberal Girl you are. To call Roberts a crybaby is a joke. Let's talk about the thinned skinned Obama for a moment. He's the one who can't stand to be challenged and is the biggest cry baby of them all. Hey ain't you the wench who married the boss? All the Supreme Court did was level the playing field. Liberals have ACCORN, Unions and the Main Stream Press in their back pocket. You guys hate a level playing field as you know you can't win. Again, your a disgrace to journalism Ruthy. Liberals Suck!

Posted by: Cobra2 | March 11, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

I will be remembering Obama's inappropriate SOTU comment when I pull the lever for ANYBODY running against this leftist radical in 2012.

Posted by: hz9604 | March 11, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Too bad if Roberts was offended by power speaking truth to the highly politicized SCOTUS. Roberts expects decorum but what does the 80% of the population expect? We expect him to follow the Constitution which has absolutely no mention or referenc to any corporation having any standing or rights under the Constitution - absolutely none. So for the whiny right to complain about activist judges legislating from the bench is devilishly hypocritical. But that's the right - whine, whine, whine.

Folks, corporation law was not even created until Lincoln was President, about 70+ years after the Constitution was written and ratified! So much for strict interpretation! The SCOTUS has endured a coup d'etat with Alito, Roberts and Thomas all lying/perjuring before the Congress in their confirmation hearings. Roberts and Alito spoke of the desire to abide by precedents (stare decisis), and then we know what has happened. The GOP whiners would defend Bernie Madoff if he were a Republican. GOP= the party of sore winners and sore losers, and hardly ever truthful.

Posted by: enough3 | March 11, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

BOTTOM LINE ON THIS STORY IS; OBAMA OUTRIGHT LIED ABOUT THAT RULING. THOSE ARE THE FACTS. LIBERALS HAVE A CHIP MISSING. GUESS THEIR TRYING TO GET THE MASSA STORY OFF THE FRONT PAGE. COME TO FIND OUT PELOSI WAS AWARE AND EVEN HOYER IS LYING THAT HE JUST FOUND OUT FEB 2010 WHEN IT WAS ACTUALY FEB 2009. THOUGHT LIBERALS EMBRACED GAYS. HE DID NOTHING WRONG. LIBERALS ARE JUST A SORRY BUNCH. LIBERALS SUCK! 2010 AND 2012 CAN'T COME SOOME ENOUGH.

Posted by: Cobra2 | March 11, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

easttxisfreaky wrote:

And there is such a thing as decorum and respect...something Obama knows nothing about. He relishes any opportunity to be rude, condescending...all the while - the truth about his mediocre abilities academic accomplishments are under lock and key.
____________________________________________

Wow? Seriously? Where is your righteous indignation over the RNC comparing the President to the Joker? Or South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson calling the President a liar during the State of the Union? As far as I can tell, President Obama has done nothing as rude, childish, or lacking in decorum (not to mention intellect) as that. He had every right to make his views known to the Court and he did it in a respectful way.

As far as I am concerned, you are as big a baby as Roberts by resorting to your petty and pathetic name-calling and insults. Perhaps you think it is witty or smart to insult the President and question his academic credentials, but the reality is that respected institutions like Columbia and Harvard don't give degrees to stupid people. You can disagree with someone's ideas and actions without resorting to this sort of low, baseless talk.


Posted by: rhalter3633 | March 11, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Let's not forget that is was liberals who did a fact check when Saturday Night Live did a skit depicting Obama as having accomplished nothihg, nada, zip. How sad was that. So who are the crybabies?

Posted by: Cobra2 | March 11, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Chief Justice Roberts is TOTALLY APPROPRIATE in his comments. The ILLITERATE DEMOCRATS don't seem to be able to assimilate the difference in the "STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS" VS. A "POLITICAL RALLY...CAMPAIGN SPEECH"!!! Obama is so full of himself he thinks he can talk down and criticize the highest Justices in the Nation and get away with it. He couldn't be justified in any manner for what he did during the State of the Union. He is a "LIAR", AND PRESIDENT OR NOT, HE DOES NOT HAVE PREFERRED RIGHTS TO DO SO TO THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. The Justices should not be required to be there, just to make the Justice system look like a joke!

Posted by: GVJaneRealEstateAz | March 11, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Roberts is a gutless coward. He lied to the Senate about how he would rule (how many "umpires" say in mid-game that not only is the strike zone changed, so is the number of strikes or outs). And now he WHINES when the President makes a very mild comment.

Like most bullies, he's brave when he's well protected, but when confronted, he melts.

If he doesn't like having to face the truth, he can always resign.

Posted by: lmb02 | March 11, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Come on folks! Obama had the platform; he was the one who 'shot' before he knew what he was talking about; embarrassed himself and others as a result of his remarks; and is still seeking someone else to blame for his own increasingly visible foibles!

Obama is not the "Omnipotent One"!

Posted by: wheeljc | March 11, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

The YouTube clip of President Obama at the State of the Union speech shows that the Democrats in the chamber stood and calmly applauded the president's deferential remarks. They did NOT "cheer and holler" as Justice Roberts mischaracterized it in his speech down South. He was engaging in political hyperbole, almost making it sound like they jeered and threw tomatoes, but the reality is much more benign and polite: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-williams/supreme-court-justice-rob_b_493984.html

Posted by: JacksonTejas | March 11, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Robert's discomfort at having to sit there at the State of the Union, silent and sullen, while he is drowned out by cheering Democrats outraged by the Court's decision on campaign finance, is a perfect metaphor for the floodgates of corporate cash Roberts and his conservative compatriots have opened, and which will likely drown out all opposition to the political agenda of big business.

Posted by: TedFrier | March 11, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Whether you are partisan or not - like the President or justice Robert or not - its a free country and we as american citizens are allowed the freedom of self expression especially when done with a civil tone and manner.

Neither man offended - both are entitled to their viewpoint. But in order to stir up interest the Post used Will and Marcus to bate the liberals(Will) and the conservatives(Marcus).

Anyone who fell for it should be ashamed of themselves.

What is needed instead is an honest, balanced, and informative analysis of the consequences of the judges decision. Did it promote the common good, enhance the growth of the middle class or just benefit the wealthy?

Posted by: agapn9 | March 11, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

NeoCon Court's version of cut and run. How could they not after deciding corporations have the Constitutional rights of people. How low will the NeoCons go? Right now they are crawling on their bellies through the slime like reptiles. And loving it.

Posted by: chucky-el | March 11, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

The whiny hypocritical right is out of their snake baskets today since the GOP charmers have started tooting their kazoos. Such whiners, always full of complaints and insults and never adding new information, analysis or intellect. What say you right wing whiners? What do you say to the fact that there is no mention of corporations in the Constitution, no corporate laws until the 1860s, and you guys stand for strict and literal interpretaton by judges, without legislating from the bench? What say you of substance in reply?

If corporations are people and entitled to the same rights as people, then shouldn't they pay taxes which you advocate abolishing? Be subject to fighting in the military? Be held accountable for littering, and facilitating sodomy in Georgia with their lubricant gels? You guys have not thought anything through, nor are you consistent. And where are your intelligent replies to such questions? Bark, bark, woof, woof.
Sore winners and sore losers = GOPee.

Posted by: enough3 | March 11, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Exactly. Roberts, Will and the other whiners can complain, boycott or whatever else they want to do. The rest of us can see that they're acting like spoiled toddlers.

Posted by: bigbrother1 | March 11, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

vigor ; he is paid by the same people that pay the moron in the White House... you and me.

Posted by: mmourges | March 11, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

RUTH MARCUS, what a delightful article!

I enjoyed every word, and had a great laugh.

Wonderful!

Posted by: lindalovejones | March 11, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

The President suggested that the Justices favoring the decision were seriously lacking in professional integrity. There is at least a little reason to hope that integrity is still considered a major expectation for Supreme Court Justices. So, it is a sad sign of the state of our politics when the President can make that kind of accusation lightly. It is also a sad sign of the times when people are surprised that some of the Justices react negatively to that kind of accusation. But I guess it is not too surprising when op ed writers don't take integrity very seriously.

Posted by: dnjake | March 11, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Odd how the Washington Post is a corporation and because it is said to print news it is exempt from the law that other Corporations were being held to. The Supreme Court ruling ended that. After observing the way the Washington Post uses its freedom of speech as a media corporation to further the Obama agenda it is only fair that other corporations should be free to spend there time and funds to put forth there views. After all a corporation is a group of individuals is it not? Just like Unions, and media outlets.
The most consistent winer in this whole thing has been the President himself.

Posted by: jace1 | March 11, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

UP YOURS Marcus. Roberts was merely answering a question.

Did the Supreme Court ruling reverse a century old law banning unlimited Corporate funds to Parties. NO! Obama Lied.

Did the Supreme Court ruling change in anyway the amount individuals or corporations can contribute to political parties? NO! Obama lied.

Does the Liberal media AND THIER CORPORATIONS HAVE ALL THE FREE SPEECH THEY WANT ANYTIME THEY WANT IT. You bet they do. Why should they be the ONLY ones?

GE owns NBC. Should they be the ONLY ONES to HAVE ALL THE FREE SPEECH THEY WANT ANYTIME THEY WANT IT?

Obama owes Alito and the Public and apology for his outright Lies.

Obama is not fit to shine Roberts shows intellectually...


And Media Pimp Marcus and WP, where in the hell are you with the truth on this issue?

Worthless Media

Posted by: Maxim49 | March 11, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

I was wrong, it's marcus not eugene, is eugene next...
why does wapo employ the same people to write the same article...
does wapo think nobody notices...

Posted by: DwightCollins | March 11, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Ruth's husband works for the Obama Administration. Why should anybody by surprised when she uses her column as an extension of Robert Gibbs podium?

Attacking the Supreme Court at the SOTU address, and through the office of the Press Secretary may be effective partisan politics, but it degrades our government and cheapens all of us.

Posted by: mandog | March 11, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Ideologues cannot abide anyone questioning their motives or criticizing their actions. When Ronald Reagan criticizes the Supremes at his State of the Union addresses, conservatives applaud. When Obama does the same thing, they call it "rude." The role of conservatism is to facilitate Big Money's control of the political system. If you oppose that, they call you a socialist.

Posted by: Ladyrantsalot | March 11, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Crybaby indeed,Ruth! These 5 judges seem to live in their own shadow,making law out of thin air; ergo, the Bush V Gore election and now the recent Corporation spending vs We the people. I think Roberts is scared of his shadow and cant take the heat Obama gave him. He absolutely must attend all future SOUS speeches because the Nine are part of the governmental infrastructure as defined by the Constitution. Thanks Obama for slapping these people along side the noggin!

Posted by: JLF0425 | March 11, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Too bad those employed by the Washington Post have so little class or respect for the Chief Justice of the United States.

In reality, the State of the Union address has been abused into a political pep rally by Obama whose only actual skill is apparently speaking (while reading from a teleprompter.)

Posted by: clandestinetomcat | March 11, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

You can always tell when a comment is posted by a Republican. Somehow it will always include a personal insult directed at the President. The hypocrisy of the Republicans who post is second in patheticism only to their inherent hatred of this President. It is so transparent.

Posted by: luvleep | March 11, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Ms Marcus is on point that ever since Ronald Reagan - the Supreme Court rulings is fair game in the State of the Union. It is rather immature and unseemly of Roberts to complain about it knowing full well that the decorum he wishes for went out the window long ago with Ronald Reagan.
Rather than hide behind decorum and hurt feelings, Roberts could use this media opportunity to defend the Courts decision and attempt to win over the public. Roberts failed to see this - it is a lost opportunity.

Posted by: Walter_Lee | March 11, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama was wrong in what he did (not to mention factually wrong) and Roberts was wrong to say what he did in Alabama. Go read George Will's column, lady. You might learn something.

Posted by: anti-danyboy | March 11, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

At least Obama didn't shout "You Lie!" to the patently dishonest conservative members of the Supreme Court. CJ Roberts should shut up and grow a pair. If he can't stnad the heat, I would gladly hold the door so that he could get out of the kitchen!!

Posted by: PepperDr | March 11, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Robert's isn't a cry-baby.

He simply believes that speech should be backed by corporate dollars.

Hang some corporate banners from the balcony, replace the Presidential Seal with a large Coca-Cola bottle cap, and rename the Capitol "Bank of America Center" and he'd be happy as a clam!

Posted by: BaltimoreCotls59 | March 11, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

roberts is right..under the rules of the Catholic Church, it is not appropriate for the President to criticize the U.S. Vatican Council formerly the Supreme Court..

Posted by: rmcgolden | March 11, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

My thoughts exactly...when I read what Justice Roberts said, I thought 'what a little man" to fill such a big job!! Our President has slings and name-calling daily by congress and news networks..and he remains strong and going forward. Does Roberts think that the "nine" are above criticism??? Their ruling on corporations show that they can help ruin our political system quickly....and I agree that it was a terrible ruling. So you guys make a terrible ruling...you pay for it! Want to run home to Mommy next time Justice Roberts???

Posted by: CaSunshine | March 11, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Robert's respectfully answered the question of a student. He was in no way being a "crybaby", he just expressed a valid viewpoint. I do think it's kind of silly to have a handful of justices sit on their hands at this event.

Posted by: sarno | March 11, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Oh and btw - corporations are NOT people.
-------------------------------------------

Well, centuries of Common Law would disagree with you...

Posted by: BradG | March 11, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

In the State of the Union address, Presidents often describe legislation that they believe the Congress should pass to solve a problem.
President Obama was not dressing down the Court-- he was asking the Congress to pass legislation repairing the damage done by the Court, much as the Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act to repair a horrible court decision. It is perfectly fair for the President to do this in an address to Congress. Yes, Roberts, Thomas and Alito are holier-than-thou crybabies.

Posted by: bethechangeyouwant | March 11, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

All republicans are crybabies. It's what they do.

Posted by: solsticebelle | March 11, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Chief Roberts, despite his pledge to the contrary, is a strict constructionist when it furthers his agenda. Other times, he ventures into the forbidden territory of being an activist.

In the instance of his remarks concerning the SOTUS address by President Obama, he is being a thin-skinned partisan - or, one could say, a "crybaby".

Posted by: rbrent516 | March 11, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Lotta silly nastiness here. I wish what the Roberts court is doing to America were only silly . It's tragic.

Posted by: frodot | March 11, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama lied and the Dumocrats stood up to applaud:
Roberts was responding to a question concerning the kerfuffle about Barack Obama's January address, wherein Obama criticized -- and flagrantly mischaracterized -- a recent Supreme Court decision that loosened limits on political speech. The decision neither overturned "a century of law" nor conferred an entitlement on foreign corporations to finance U.S. candidates. Nevertheless, the Democratic donkeys arrayed in front of Obama leapt onto their hind legs and brayed in unison, while the six justices who were present sat silently.

Posted by: nychap44 | March 11, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Good for the goose, I say. If Reagan did it, then so can Obama, and the right-wing crazies can just stew in their own festering juices.

Posted by: lloydamy | March 11, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

The Supreme Court can easily win full support again.
They only have to open Obama's hidden history as a Public Official and set right the wrong.
The People have the right to know.

Posted by: dottydo | March 11, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Wow --

From the website of the Federal Trade Commission: "Jon Leibowitz was designated to serve as Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission on March 2, 2009, by President Barack H. Obama."

Mr. Leibowitz is married to Ruth Marcus. Could this have any bearing on her judgment? Has she ever NOT taken Obama's side on any issue? Calling the Chief Justice names is the apex of whining when she could have made the point without resorting to childish name calling. How does that help move the discussion of the merits of what happened at the SOTU? She has been writing for a long time (and went to Harvard Law), can't she do better than this?

Posted by: buster5 | March 11, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Roberts and his judiciary "ILK" fit the textbook definition of "Activist Judges" that the right spent so much time demonizing.. only this time because there's money (read:PROFIT) involved, and raw power to be had if this is allowed to go forward, they are cheering.

Isn't it time to remove Roberts from the bench?

Posted by: BellsBlu2 | March 11, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Justice Roberts, throw in the towel and go home for good. We didn't want you and still don't.

Posted by: citigreg | March 11, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Come on Marcus, give us a break. Obama acted like a thug, which shouldn't surprise anyone (I'm sure your knee pads don't come cheap)....I thought the "messiah" would show a little class.

Posted by: luca_20009 | March 11, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

No Ruth...the President is a one term donkey that just made enemies with the majority of the SCOTUS an equally powerful branch of government; brilliant I'd say since he'll be losing support of the other equally powerful branch of government in the fall. This guy will be the lamest duck in history come November...he wishes he was Jimmy Carter. Run along now Ruthie and drink some more of your cold red sugary beverages.

Posted by: civilrightist | March 11, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Gee, it's not as though President Obama was exhorting a mob of thugs in suits to intimidate people attempting to count votes in Florida.

And it's not as though Obama was emulating Senator John Cornyn, a former Texas Supreme Court justice, by the way, in encouraging people aggrieved by judicial decisions to rough up the judges who issued them.

And it's not as though Obama was calling for Roberts' daughters to be strip-searched without a parent present on the off-chance that they might have some pill on them. (For some reason, the Chief Justice of the United States has a penchant for wanting to see teenage girls humiliated by authority figures.)

Posted by: edallan | March 11, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

We can hope and pray that Roberts, Alito, and Thomas drop dead soon. Lousy stinking conservative activist judges all.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | March 11, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

It's not unusual for obama to show his lack
of character and to lie about things to make himself look good which isn't working,
LOL have you seen his approval ratings lately he keeps getting lower and lower and lower!
,

Posted by: samuellenn | March 11, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

The current supreme court is seriously politicized and a few of its members should not be there at all. Its rulings are too biased to be acceptable.

Balance of power requires that the president take the offending members of the court to task when they are out of line. The president would have been remiss had he not.

Posted by: joehlindsay | March 11, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

@civilrightist..poor baby! No one loves you huh? I can tell.

Posted by: luvleep | March 11, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

I got news for ya.
ALL republicans/conservatives are CRY-BABIES now that the country sees them for what they are.

Posted by: strictly_liberal | March 11, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Roberts has a glass chin..way to go Obama..i am actually starting to like you again...

Posted by: rmcgolden | March 11, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Glad you feel that way Ruth Baby.. It’s now open season on Sonia Sotomayor & all the unintended financial & socials costs from the commie justices.. Let’s start with the “Great Society” B%..

Posted by: genbarlow | March 11, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Roberts ?

You mean Frank Burns

face it.

Sometimes I'm HAPPY if Bank of America fails - so goes America

BYE BYE ROBERTS

self righteous hole.

THANK GOD LIFE IS SHORT

SOMETIMES it's not short enough.

Then again, you're the one who has 'been' but not 'lived'.

Tim Miltz

Posted by: LactoseIntolerantNot | March 11, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

I totally agree that Roberts is a crybaby. That was exactly my reaction when I first read about his comments. He seems to be afraid, insecure, and lacking in conviction. If he felt his ruling were correct -- and not politically motivated -- he probably wouldn't feel the need to defend them so much, or defend his own tender feelings. Is he a man or an injured little boy?

I honestly feel that he's been afraid of Obama ever since the inauguration when he flubbed his duty to give the oath of office and forgot the words. Obama graciously covered for him, but for this egotist Roberts, it must have been humiliating.

Yep, he's a crybaby.

Posted by: cturtle1 | March 11, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm ... Obama said that the Congress should pass legislation to counter the effect of the Court's ruling! That is what is supposed to happen. If the courts rule something 'unconstitutional', then either go along or frame new legislation that takes into account the court's opinion.

The shame of it all! The President actually advocated that we let the system work! Incredible! A federal overthrow of the government! Has to be grounds for impeachment!

Posted by: AMviennaVA | March 11, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

rostermaier:

Highest court ?

are you kidding me ?

US Supreme Court went out the window when they elected Bush

second - Bank of America falls ?

US Supreme WHAT ?

lol

yeah - SUCK THAT DOWN

US IS JACK without Bank of America

INCLUDING ROBERTS for the phony he is.

Sometimes ? I can accept that people die of health anomalies.

Really.

COME ON PROSTATE CANCER !

Posted by: LactoseIntolerantNot | March 11, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Far as I'm concerned

Judge Roberts is SNORKLING America.

placing his balls in America's eye sockets.

rest is history.

GO BANK OF AMERICA !

BYE BYE USA

If I'm wrong - please correct me.

Posted by: LactoseIntolerantNot | March 11, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Marcus, you're example why we need free speech for everyone from every source all the time not just the media pimps and their corporations.

Posted by: Maxim49 | March 11, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

I'm a crybaby too. There are tears on every paycheck and then there is no paycheck and you are a crybaby too. Back us or sack us.

Posted by: tossnokia | March 11, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

LOL I heard jimmy carter voted for obama to
make sure he wasn't the worse pres ever.

Posted by: samuellenn | March 11, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Sometimes it's right to remove the tumor.

Sometimes it's wrong.

Roberts is a tumor.

Remove the robe ?

It's FRANK BURNS !

Posted by: LactoseIntolerantNot | March 11, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse


Marcus said "Roberts is a big crybaby"

No, he was criticized in front of a national audience with no privilege to defend himself. You are the real crybaby.
.

Posted by: Billw3 | March 11, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Roberts dies of a heart attack today ?

Hey - I won't feel so bad I didn't win the powerball.

Posted by: LactoseIntolerantNot | March 11, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to thank Obama for highlighting what a partisan, activist, excuse for a judge Roberts actually is.

Obama should note this on national TV at least once per week.

Posted by: Ms_Morgan | March 11, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

This man is not of the people.

This 'court' is no longer in power.

The US Supreme Court lost all power in 2000

In Afghanistan - they had a runoff election

In Iraq - they had a runoff election

In the US? We had 7 people vote Bush in.

BYE BYE USSC.

hope you have stock in Bank of America

Because without Bank of America -you won't HAVE a paycheck.

Now, about that missing laptop BOA !

let's explore this !

DOJ ?

step up to the plate -

OR forever hold your peace.

You have NO IDEA what's coming down the tubes via the WORLD WIDE WEB

and you can't stop it.

Nor can I.

HEADS UP ROBERTS - I believe you just discovered you don't have a job.

Posted by: LactoseIntolerantNot | March 11, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

op cit, amendment

Marcus said "Roberts is a big crybaby"

No, he was criticized by a narcisstic egomaniac in front of a national audience with no privilege to defend himself. You are the real crybaby.

Posted by: Billw3 | March 11, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Roberts knows exactly what the score is. He is all for corporations. He has sided with corporations in 100% of the decision that where and individual rights vs corporate rights were involved. He precides over what is probably the most political supreme court in history. He is a pseudo-strict constructionist. He uses the constitution verbatum when it agrees with his political view point. He interprets the constitution when it is contrary to his political opinions. Scalia even admits pubicly to this behavior. Read the federalist papers. The founding fathers warned against this type of behavior in the federalist papers. This is not what they wanted.

Posted by: TJMAN | March 11, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Hey this wouldn't even be an issue if Democrats didn't get their panties in a knot over Justice Alito under his breath mouth "not true".. No one even knew he did it until they went to the video tape then Democrats got all crazy that a justice DARE mouth something... so who's the one acting like children???? Look if Obama wants to say something that's NOT TRUE.. which he did went he said foreign countries will be buying our elections.. that's his business. But you can't blame people to reacting to it when he does..

Posted by: sovine08 | March 11, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Just incredible how the right wingnuts go ballistic and scream to high heaven if their views are not worshiped as the Divine Truth, but they can lie and smear to their hearts content.

Even when confronted with the Great Reagan doing far more, they insult and scream. Go back to the video, kids, and actually listen to what was said, not what Rush and Glenn and Fox fabricate. Try to listen to it as if Bush or Reagan said it, and then decide. Stop letting your political hatred overrule your intelligence. You're not stupid, so stop letting yourselves be manipulated by people who see you as tools to be used. And those people happen to include Murdoch, Beck, Limbaugh et al, who laugh at you as they go to the bank (Murdoch has said that if liberal paid more than conservative, Fox News would be far left in an instant. It's the money, sonny.).

Posted by: lmb02 | March 11, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Poor Roberts. Apparently, he thought he and the other Justices were going to meet some horrible fate from the rabble.

It may have been "troubling" to be on the receiving end of some criticism; I guarantee it will be nowhere near the trouble we'll all see with this ruling come November.

Posted by: EnemyOfTheState | March 11, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Frankly - Frank Burns

we're just g'damned smarter than you.

And we didn't seek to take any borders

We just secured the data that - oh noes !

tell me it's not so !

if Bank of America has a data breach - where 1 in 3 American's now bank at BOA - and if BOA fails ? er, BofAML fails ?

oh noes !

You'd THINK that data would be more valuable than all the nuclear weapons the US has combined.

Ah shucks

Roberts

not ONLY will you have NO pay check

ALL your assets

GONE - POOF -

RECONSTRUCTION coming.

BIGGER than nuclear weapons

And to think - gee- the WORLD WIDE WEB came OUT of ARPANET designed out of FEAR of use of nuclear weapons.

People have no clue what's going on.

When it happens ? it will come down QUICK - in weeks -

BYE BYE USSC.

BYE BYE Roberts - you PHONY

enjoy your phony role as long as you want.

Of course, if you think I'm wrong - please correct me -

last I checked, if Bank of America fails ?

we're all in the crapper -

hmm -

hey - didn't they lose a laptop a few years back ? fined 28 million ?

anyone ever recover that ?

anyone at DOJ care to make a public PRESS STATEMENT as to just what was ON THAT ?

ANYONE ?

Roberts- you have no power.

Take off the robe man - and stand up as a man - NOTHING SPECIAL PAL.

NOTHING SPECIAL.

One of 7 ? no - one of NONE.

Think I'm kidding ?

you can't stop it pal.

NO ONE CAN.

Tim Miltz

Posted by: LactoseIntolerantNot | March 11, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Sounded like another "The cops acted stupidly" moment for Obama. He was wrong on the facts again but this time Dems got all nuts because Alito had the nerve to mouth "not true" under his breath. Look you want the Supreme Court there fine.. but even a President shouldn't be able to call them out and expect these guys to not move a muscle.

Posted by: sovine08 | March 11, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

"And there is such a thing as decorum and respect...something Obama knows nothing about. He relishes any opportunity to be rude, condescending...all the while - the truth about his mediocre abilities academic accomplishments are under lock and key."
blah blah blah blah...

why don't you republican ghouls say what is really on your mind:

How dare a black man criticize a good ol' white boy?

This is the subtext for almost all of the negative comments on this board.

Posted by: jamesmmoylan | March 11, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Ruth Marcus is a dope.

Posted by: InHarmsWay | March 11, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

To be clear-

Do I wish any harm to any human being ?
no

Is Roberts a fraud ?

hey - just my take - yes.

Justice in the US went out the window when the USSC elected by COUP Bush into presidency.

We can not recover economically form the damage from Bush - he used housing to liquidate what resources were left.

Do the laws on the books so hard worked on ? over the years ? have value ?

you bet.

Can there be a global society emerge to draw on hard work from all nation states laws ?

you bet.

USSC is the HIGHEST court in the land - and yet ? to challenge how the USSC voted in Bush ? you'd have to take it to the USSC - and the USSC being CULPRIT here ?

I'd say - USSC has no more moral substance - we ALL know Roberts was put in to undo Roe-V- Wade

USSC is corrupt so long as Roberts stands.

Why ?

Because bush was never LEGALLY president -

but - paradox...

to challenge that the USSC is in error ? the USSC is the LAST STOP TO TRY THAT.

Truth has a way of revealing itself.

Truth is - Bank of America fails ?

There IS no America.

National Security ? forget that

Bank of America security is more important.

And last I checked, they have a HUGE HOLE in their data model - and it's JUST WAITING to reveal itself.

DOJ has been hijacked like an airline.

That Monica Goodling EVER COULD BE ? the #1 HR person at DOJ ?

my god - MY GOD

what HAVE WE DONE

WHAT HAVE WE ALLOWED - to happen.

I'm just saying - few uploads, few downloads here and there ?

Bye bye Bank of America

Roberts is NOT FIT for USSC.

Bush was never President - therefore Roberts is NOT LEGALLY on the USSC.

BUT - what court above the USSC can keep watch on the USSC for the election fraud in 2000 ?

There is none.

Therefore there is only ONE WAY to settle this.

If I were at DOJ - I'd be working on asking BoaFML just HOW SURE THEY ARE

They aren't facing a data breach that can topple the GLOBAL corporation.

HOW SECURE IS BofAML ?

BofAML fails - USSC goes WITH IT.

and if you ask me ?

GOOD RIDDANCE

POST 2000- USA hasn't existed.

Think I'm kidding ?

WATCH THE FIREWORKS

Tim Miltz

Posted by: LactoseIntolerantNot | March 11, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

What did you expect?

Roberts couldn't handle President Obama's Oath of Office at the Inauguration without botching it all to hell.

Keep in mind, he's a Bushie.

"Brownie, you're doin' a heckuva job!"


Posted by: angrycrat1 | March 11, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

I could be wrong !

Posted by: LactoseIntolerantNot | March 11, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

but I know I'm right on this one.

BEST thing in our future is Lawrence Livermore Laboratory- on fusion coming.

Will END sociopaths like Bush seeking energy profits.

THEN - we can FINALLY start to experience what humanity has to offer itself.

BETTER days ahead - that's for sure.

Roberts AND the USSC is only as powerful as Bank of America is secure.

There is no arguing that.

Posted by: LactoseIntolerantNot | March 11, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Maybe we can go back to FDR and try to get the right wing out so the depression would have been over earlier.

Posted by: jrubin1 | March 11, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

If Roberts didn't want to be publicly humiliated, he should not have made such an aweful ruling.

Posted by: kurthunt | March 11, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Someone else on this blog already said this but I'll repeat it:

Chief Justice Roberts is a gutless coward.

Period.

Posted by: twilson66 | March 11, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

"State of the Union" address is a big joke!
I am 74 and have never heard a true state of the union address. All Presidents paint a rosy picture regardless of the current conditions. No Democrat nor Republican President that I have listened to gave a speech that was truthful about the nations state of affairs. I quite listening to them some time ago.

Posted by: jslivesay | March 11, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Don't get me wrong people

I'm PRO humanity

Nation states come and go

humanity is here to stay

invest in what really matters.

I'd buy BoaFML stock if I were you !

OR SHORT IT lol

something coming down the pipes to demonstrate the full power of the world wide web- which evolved out of a nation state seeking to handle a nuclear attack - ARPANET - came out of fear of nation state nuclear attacks - and yet ?

it's FREE'd us ALL

from the bondage of a FAILED model of nationalism.

I for one feel it was REALLY WORTH IT to learn some incompetents in the US Air Force flew NUCLEAR WARHEADS over our head - accidentally attached to jets for 'target practice'.

MY GOD

WHAT IS IT WORTH ?

WHAT IS IT WORTH to pretend people didn't show up with bible and musket in hand to say - you non-believers - you heathen natives- this land is OURS and we're going to cut it up and pretend it's to be owned.

Why ?

BECAUSE WE SAY SO and have the guns ?

GTF out of here -

I won't STAND for what this 'so called' nation was founded on -

USE OF FORCE

TOTAL KILLING OFF of peoples who lived here before us.

And now ? of course- by LAW ? land is protected ? OWNED

GIVE ME A BREAK

GO DEAL WITH A COMET or METEOR

and tell me who OWNS THAT

YEAH - thought so, I see, when it's a meteor heading at you at 38,000 mph - unstoppable - you don't want to OWN - THAAAAYAT real estate

but if it's resources - you can claim and seek profit from ?

Why good ole USSC to back it all up.

SORRY

BANK OF AMERICA DATA IS NOT SECURE.

MARK MY WORDS

Better call back Paulson and Bernanke to figure it out.

Roberts won't HAVE a paycheck at the end of the day - no paycheck ?

think he'll work for free ?

I doubt it.

That face- says it ALL to me.

Now, let's see-

DOJ...

YOU won't have paychecks either

willing to work for free ?

I am.

I want to see humanity be FREED from this GREED and INSOLENCE -

Humanity WILL prevail -

nationalism - can go accidentally fly a nuclear weapon over for target practice...

Or better- do some above ground testing.

The plutonium released from US above ground testing - under Clinton - thankfully he acknowledged over 70,000 US cases of LUNG CANCER came out of that.

I'm SURE that's lowballing it.

FOR WHAT ?

FOR WHAT ?

SO BANK OF AMERICA CAN HOLD ALL THE CARDS in the end ?

a GLOBAL ?

FINANCIAL CORPORATION ?

BYE BYE ROBERTS

humanity is moving on - you can keep your pretend fantasy that you have any power.

GOOD RIDDANCE TOO

Maybe George Lucas was wrong

Where nuclear weapons technology can destroy us ?

WWW database technology can save us !

from ourselves.

no

FOR ourselves.

Tim Miltz

Posted by: LactoseIntolerantNot | March 11, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Our first "post partisan" president is the most devisive president of the last one hundred years. Our "hope and change" president has provided the "exact same" but on steroids.


Barrack Obama is the most dispicable president we've had in a hundred years and those who support his tyrannical rule will rue the day he was elected.

Posted by: Indpnt1 | March 11, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

OH yeah

and the ruling was to allow GLOBAL corporate influence on elections.

How much was Roberts paid

THAT is his weakness.

FIND THAT - and out with this scum.

Tim Miltz

Posted by: LactoseIntolerantNot | March 11, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

It was a fair comment by Obama and delivered with due deference to the audience from Judiciary. Being a CJ one expects Justice Roberts to differentiate between a personal comment and an issue based comment. The Executive has every right to goad the lawmakers (Senate) to introduce laws for governance as it deems fit. That the need arises for such laws owing to some recent judgement is of no consequence. Obama chose the correct platform and the correct deliverance for the same. If people related to the cause and felt like giving it a standing ovation, it is not Obama's creation. That only goes to show that he is on target.
For CJ to react with criticism and make derogatory remarks about the SOUA - political pep rally, is unbecoming of position he holds. It is further unbecoming of him to also include a veiled threat of not attending the future addresses (though not categgorically stated). All in all it is a low point in the American Judiciary.

Posted by: purush1 | March 11, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

What a SLAP in the face to the people of America.

FIRST Supreme Court decides the election in 2000

then ?

Decides GLOBAL financial corporations can lobby to direct control of the future elections.

Wow

Sometimes, it's probably okay to hire blackwater to just go kill a bunch of people ? eh ?

complicated isn't it.

emotions.

Posted by: LactoseIntolerantNot | March 11, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Just look at you right-wingnuts using this forum to bash all of us commie liberals. You call us pathetic? Look at what the policies of the Right have done to this country, then tell us again how pathetic we are. Think all of this misery has been wrought by commie liberals? Nope. The policies of shutting out the majority in favor of the minority brought us to this point.

ALL OF YOU are crybabies. Your radio talk show hosts are twits, and your TV pundits are even worse. But you'll keep shoving your crap down the already constricted throats of the American people to some idiotic end, like some pervert who's pulled a child into the bushes for a free BJ. Shut-up already, we're tired of your BS.

Our very own Supreme Court SHOULD be called to account for their ill-conceived decisions when they go against our Constitution. So some clever lawyer got up in front of the Supremes and profferd a plausible argument that corporations (entities) should be given a voice like you and me (individuals).

Entities cannot pull voting machine levers, but they CAN & WILL use their considerable financial resources to sway our elections. Which is kinda funny because they already do this.

It was and still is a crap decision, and I for one appreciate the President for pointing it out, regardless of the forum in which he chose to air our national dirty laundry.

We have been rightly vilified by the rest of the world because we have turned into a nation of numbnuts when we allow our own Supreme Court to subvert the will of the people, and controvert the intention of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

To Sovine08, you have a lot to learn yet, darlin. You may want to exercise your brain, stop mouthing off about us liberals, and think about the ramifications of the Supremes' decision.

The rest of us see it. Why don't you? Cos you're too busy flapping your jaw when you need to read your history, study our Constitution, and watch what happens next.

Posted by: Jubileedoo1 | March 11, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

LactoseIntolerantNot/Mr. Miltz,

You may not realize this, but you aren't making any sense to anyone but yourself. I'm not trying to be mean or make fun of you, but please stop typing and take your medications.
If you have no medications, please see a doctor soon. God speed.

Posted by: bigbrother1 | March 11, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

"It may be that he is a cry-baby but Obama has no class dressing down the highest court in the land in public in order to score a few political points!"

Yep -- and Obama didn't even manage to score those political points. Like everything else he's done, this managed to immediately blow up in his face. He's the anti-Midas. Oh, and the irony of complaining to the Supreme Court about a decision supporting First Amendment rights in a forum where the Justices weren't permitted to say anything is such that I'm surprised the entire assembly didn't implode like the house in Poltergeist. That's even before the grotesquerie of Obama having to do so by teleprompter.

Posted by: zippyspeed | March 11, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

That would, I think, be a mistake. If conservative justices boycott a Democratic president's State of the Union address, who, then, will be politicizing the court?
----------------------------

who are we kidding - the SC is just another arm of the party that appoints the judges - they are just political hacks and do not deserve our respect. Sad.

Posted by: sux123 | March 11, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Imprison me

I don't acknowledge Judge Roberts as being Judge.

I don't acknowledge Bush was ever elected.

I don't buy what the USSC served up in 2000.

Call it what you want to

I call it messing with the kid.

Posted by: LactoseIntolerantNot | March 11, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Roberts is just playing the role.

He's not pro humanity

He's PRO his OWN private beliefs

Roberts will fall

or step down

with proper justice.

Depends on what you call justice full span humanity monolithic / paleo-lithic to current.

Posted by: LactoseIntolerantNot | March 11, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Marcus,

You do understand the difference between answering a question and whining, don't you?

Posted by: slowtriathlete-washingtonpost | March 11, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Good job Ms. Marcus - you have told it like it is.

Roberts should never have been confirmed,
nor Alito, but they were rammed down the
throats of Americans by George Bush and the
Republican Party.

President Obama voted against Roberts'
confirmation, and rightfully so.

Pay back Roberts? He is as political as
they come and a disgrace to the legal
community. Same goes for Alito.

They both lied during their confirmation
hearings and should step down due to their
lack of truth and dignity.

Posted by: Sirius2 | March 11, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Wow indpnt1. Miss your meds today? The only reason this country is divided is because the republicans have been acting like the school yard bully. If they don't like the game, then they want to take their ball and go home.

Justice Roberts needs to suck it up and move on. If it's part of his job to sit quietly at the state of the union, then sit quietly. Do you know how many meetings I'm required to attend that I don't want to go to or I don't feel are necessary? But I have to go and I'm not getting paid $200k a year for the rest of my life to do it, either.

Posted by: wmwilliams14 | March 11, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

"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 to the requirements of protocol -- has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."
------------------------------------------

It's nowhere near as troubling as the absolutely atrocious decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court as referred to by Obama in the the State of the Union address.

I have a really hard time thinking of another judicial decision so worth of public condemnation.


Posted by: cjpotter19 | March 11, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Hey Roberts

Once upon a time

you dressed so fine

and that's about it.

No robe - you're Frank Burns man.

face it

Tell me - Roberts- does the sweat between your arse cheeks somehow weigh in more valuable than the average US citizen ? who was left wondering how it was the US Supreme Court was the FINAL VOTE COUNT

For Bush ?

who led us to Iraq ?

to Afghanistan ?

you POS Roberts - you should have had a spine and said - I want no part of this criminal COUP in 2000

you didn't

you just SAT there

like Bush on 9.11

just SAT there

your house is on fire mr. bush - Roberts - and you just SAT THERE

and you SIT THERE on the bench

I don't wish cancer on you

but I DO wish you step down and own up to the truth - and acknowledge your appointment wasn't legal - because bush was never legally elected.

But then again, the USSC electing Bush ? and the USSC being the highest court in the land ? Gee- guess that sums it up doesn't it - USSC rules right ?

no

BANK OF AMERICA RULES

and I do hear rumor that they have had a SERIOUS DATA BREACH -

I wonder

I do wonder

what could possibly be the outplay of that ?

Hey - DOJ - you should know if you've researched me - I know VERY WELL what I'm talking about there

and it's sad to watch

no one can stop what's coming.

I don't expect a 2012 election -

Breach at BoAML is END GAME

PERHAPS NSA should have spent more time on BoAML's SAS-70 stability instead of Afghanistan.

Awe gee

and you know who architected Afghanistan War ?

General Tommy Franks ?

Short of being let go in June 2009 - why ? he decided to just give up the war in Afghanistan and join the BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR BANK OF AMERICA

I KNOW VERY WELL WHAT I'M ON ABOUT.

I have GIVEN DOJ - I've given you ALL FAIR WARNING JUST WHAT IS GOING ON

you used to LAUGH

now you don't

talk so loud

no you don't act so proud

POST BoAML COLLAPSE ?

to be SCROUNGING AROUND for YOUR next meal.

HOW DOES IT FEEL

to be without a HOME

like a COMPLETE UNKNOWN !

WAKE UP PEOPLE - THINGS ARE ABOUT TO IMPROVE after we FLUSH THE US SUPREME COURT DOWN THE TOILET - and GOOD RIDDANCE.

SENT people off to die

for what

elected Bush

for what ?
to get Sunoco, Conoco, BP, I can't even begin to explain in a textbox here -

DOJ - ask yourselves, will you work for free ?

when BOA fails and you have no paycheck ?

ask yourselves.

QUICK- it's BIGGER THAN A BREAD BOX

and it's bigger than a nation state

what's coming.

I can't stop it - it's in play - and you can thank the US CIA in part for knowingly or unknowingly GREASE THE ENTIRE PROCESS.

Heya Tommy FRANKS ! How's that NEW BANKING CAREER !

I see BOA let go an admiral too !

BYE BYE US ECONOMY - NSA ? you useless narcissists won't have a paycheck EITHER

how does it FEEL

TELL ME - er,

how's it GONNA FEEL !

Tim Miltz

Posted by: LactoseIntolerantNot | March 11, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Thank you!
The U.S. has become a casual nation so much so that most do not know or show respect anymore.
Certainly, the Supreme Court should be in attendance at the State of the Union and, yes, Alito was out of bounds with his antics.
The Justices as the Army Offices are supposed to appear to be non partisan and Justice Roberts is not the first to be called out -- too much self-important thinking of those in power. Respect for your country and appropriate behaviour -- Has Washington has become more tacky?? uncouth?? as they say??

Posted by: paulet | March 11, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

hey infantry11b4faus, why don't you take your ignorant racist statements and stick them where the moon don't shine. If you actually served it was probably poorly, you are disgrace to our military, cracker.

Posted by: arkadie7 | March 11, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

bigbrother1 - what communication efforts in particular do you not understand ?

Posted by: LactoseIntolerantNot | March 11, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Bush was never elected

Bush put in Roberts

Robert's seat has no foundation in being in ANY sense of justice.

AND that the SUPREME COURT is WHO PUT BUSH IN ?

MY GOD

What a circular reference.

It's going to take a serious data breach on Bank of America to knock some sense into these mothers.

BETTER OR WORSE

Most people don't understand what Sec. Treasury Paulson meant when he said if Merrill Lynch fails - so goes the US economy- alas binding them with Bank of America - would be a better deal.

Most people don't understand Bank of America isn't immune from a data breach.

In fact, I DO RECALL - a laptop not so long ago - Bank of America paid a fee of 28 million for losing - but you know ?

Forget a terrorist attack.

Where is THAT laptop - and my god - with STATISTICALLY one in THREE American households banking at Bank of America ?

My god - talk about a disaster waiting to happen...

NOT just about the laptop - North Carolina has other problems than corporate pig farms -no kidding - no comment DOJ - and no, NO DEAL - this board goes WAY PAST 1 million, and I don't want anything from it but REAL JUSTICE - JUSTICE that Judge Roberts can't deliver...

Tim Miltz

Posted by: LactoseIntolerantNot | March 11, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Marcus,
Please remove the LactoseintolerantNot postings as they are disruptive of any civilized discourse, far far too frequent, extremely long and unintelligible.
Thank you

Posted by: enough3 | March 11, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

We hear how Obama criticized the decision. Read the transcript.

All he did was state what he thought the EFFECTS of the ruling would be. And that's the fact that BIG MONEY will have a field day in upcoming campaigns.

And remember, money is speech, according to an earlier SC ruling.

Great song on the subject at
ReverbNation.com/leajones (BIG MONEY - FOR JOHN ROBERTS)

Posted by: leajones99 | March 11, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

If money is speech, why isn't speech taxed?

Posted by: NMModerate1 | March 11, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

bigbrother1 - you say I'm not making sense to you

I can't be held accountable for you ability to or not to understand.

Please though, tell me what you are confused about and perhaps I can clarify.

Posted by: LactoseIntolerantNot | March 11, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the cry baby

Posted by: evangel7 | March 11, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

The double standards here are hilarious: Everyone was quite indignant when the President was called a liar at the last State of the Union (or whatever it was), but when the President says something that is blatantly untrue per the century of campaign finance reform, then it is a good thing. Hmmm? I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. But I'm with Roberts--a little decorum, protocol, and respect for the other branches of gov't from both parties would seem to be appropriate in this "era of bipartisanship." Would you put up with one guest intimidating and attempting to insult another in your home? COngress apparently does! Shame on COngress and the Prez. As well as both parties!!!! TIme to reread the theory of separation of powers--Reporters and columnists too.

Posted by: jwappe | March 11, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Marcus,
Please remove the LactoseintolerantNot postings as they are disruptive of any civilized discourse, far far too frequent, extremely long and unintelligible.
Thank you

Posted by: enough3


discourse eh ?

extremely long and unintelligible -

sounds like 8 years under a criminal use of the US supreme court to say - hey hey hey- forget a runoff election people- leave that to Afghanistan or Iran to have- we're going to just settle this here and now - and Bush is now leader.

Posted by: LactoseIntolerantNot | March 11, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Amazing that some of you same people criticizing President Obama's comments are the same people who agreed when Wilson yelled out "you lie" to the President of the United States. You all are the same ones who whine about free speech unless of course it is President Obama. What's the problem, insulted because President Obama called it right when he spoke about the Supreme Court decision?

My question though is why is it okay for Republicans/conservatives/right wing/ Obama haters to vilify President Obama on everything he says or does but you all whine like babies when he turns the tables? Republicans can dish it out but not take it.

Posted by: catmomtx | March 11, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Good name-calling hysterical journalism, Ruthie, you twit.

Posted by: chatard | March 11, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

One of the dumbest columes I've seen. Roberts was asked a question and gave his opinion. Not to mention that Obama was wrong, and I suspect lying to score points with the left.

Posted by: sgilligan1 | March 11, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Chief Justice Roberts is a cry baby because he correctly noted that President Obama is a liar? Gee, I wonder if Marcus is a member of the liberal news media?

Posted by: GordonShumway | March 11, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Again, the Obama White House shows its true colors. They are not presidential, not even civil. They are jerks of the lowest order.

Posted by: amazd | March 11, 2010 2:42 PM Reagan too therefore--or is St. Ronald above criticism?
Your hypocrisy is showing

Posted by: bklyndan22 | March 11, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Cowardly, gutless swipe at a captive court by the Chief Narcisst.
Equally cowardly swipe by a preening, bloviating, water-carrier for the "Most Transparent" gang of scumbags.

The only thing transaprent is their incompetence.

Posted by: F-4Phantom | March 11, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama showed no class in criticizing the Supremes at the SOTU. It was not the time or place for such remarks and it revealed a surprising lack of decorum from the Great Communicator.
He was also wrong in that the Court did not reverse a century-old law. That law dealt with the direct giving of money from corporations to politicians (not that that isn't happening). What the ruling did reverse was the McCain-Feingold law which is 90+ years short of a century. The Supreme Court ruling stated that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited pursuant to the right of these entities to free speech.
If the President really cared about the constitution, he would realize that ANY restriction of free speech violates the first amendment and it affects us all. Furthermore, with a wealth of (mostly corporate-owned) media outlets such as cable and broadcast TV, newspapers, magazines and blogs, no viewpoint expressed in a documentary or ad will go unchallenged by an opposing viewpoint.

Posted by: PaulOPinion | March 11, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

The Constitution requires that the president shall, from time to time, give Congress information on the state of the union.

There is no equivalent requirement to provide such information to the Supreme Court; indeed, it would be inappropriate for the president to do so outside the formal submissions of the Solicitor General in pending cases.

Traditionally, even the requirement to provide information to Congress was satisfied in writing -- the speech is a relatively recent invention.

The Supreme Court has no business attending these spectacles, and it is a shame this issue has now been caught up in the debate over "Citizens United" and the president's criticism of it.

Posted by: Meridian1 | March 11, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Hold on. Obama can take potshots at the court in a setting where they aren't allowed a rebuttal and they're not allowed to respond. But they're never EVER allowed a rebuttal? Roberts isn't a crybaby - Obama's a bully. So much for his bipartisanship crap. This coming from a President who complains about special interests, and promptly exempts his Union supporters from the proposed Health Care taxes while sticking it to the rest of us.

Posted by: mwcob | March 11, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Ruth you ignorant uniformed load of dogpile, at least your cranial rectal inversion is an excuse for penning a childish whimpering elementary Rubber and Glue narrative.

At least Joe Wilson had the good grace to apologize for his ourburst which was wrong though obviously his accusation was correct. Your halfbreed pretender doesn't have the guts or class to admit his mistakes. Will you teach your daughter to follow this kind of false leader? Sorry stupid Q of course you will she will grow up reading and hearing your drival!!

Posted by: jcc3 | March 11, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

roberts is just another professional "victim" like so many whiney butt wealthy white boys.

Posted by: newagent99 | March 11, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

nothing chief about roberts. he and the rest of you whining tbagging non-tax paying neocon wingnutz need to SHUT THE FLUCK UP!

Posted by: neec13 | March 11, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

"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 to the requirements of protocol -- has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

And the politicization and the partisanization of the judicial branch continues.

What happened to justice is blind and dispassionate?

Posted by: merkytimes | March 11, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Maybe next year, since Roberts intentinally flubbed up the oath of office, the Obama administration can accidentally flub up the invitations for Roberts and Alito and instruct the guards to say "we don't even know you" to those two clowns and in Roberts case, a blatant liar, when they show up.

Posted by: buckbatard | March 11, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Roberts is a thin skinned little p*ssy boy, as well a a putrid republican corporate shill judicial activist hypocrite.

Posted by: jeffc6578 | March 11, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

"to call on Congress to craft a legislative response to the decision . . ."

This is my phone call to each of my representatives:

From this day forward, for every one dollar ($1) donated to a candidate, two dollars must be paid to the Treasury. Monies received to be used to balance the budget and pay off the debt.
Currently: $12,544,389,439,808

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Posted by: thomp | March 11, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

jcc3 said a few moments ago "At least Joe Wilson had the good grace to apologize for his ourburst which was wrong though obviously his accusation was correct."

So sorry to burst your bubble, jcc3, but this happened around 2PM today:

Joe "You Lie!" Wilson (R-SC-02) said on the floor moments ago, discussing the health insurance reform proposal:
"On the good side, The Hill today reports, front page, the Senate bill provides for citizenship verification to buy insurance."

Wilson, you'll recall, screamed out "You Lie!" when President Obama told Congress in an address to a Joint Session that the health insurance reform bill would not offer coverage to illegal immigrants.

And guess what? Today he says it won't. Well, I'll be!

So who is the liar now?
GOP= party of sore winners and sore losers, and always lying.

Posted by: enough3 | March 11, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Poor, poor John Roberts! He says he felt powerless having to sit there mute as Obama dressed him down for selling our democracy off to the highest bidder. I guess he got a taste of how EIGHTY PERCENT OF AMERICA (according to a poll I saw) feels after his ruling. For they have lost their voice, all because "Justice" Roberts (who has no clue what the word means) has effectively finished drowning them out with this decision.

Roberts should have his mouth duct-taped for several hours each day in perpetuity so that he is constantly reminded what it's like to have your voice taken away. One two-hour SOTU address is not nearly enough voiceless time for him.

Posted by: B2O2 | March 11, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse


SUPREME court justices of the united states of america ... i would think one of the most basic requirements of such a position is the ability to rise above the fray. both roberts' and alito's taking personal offense at having to be exposed to the fray only serves as evidence of their inability to be impartial and their lack of qualifications for the positions they now hold.

Posted by: ltwp5 | March 11, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Hey, did the White House get to all you media people to discuss how terrible the Supreme Court is all at once? First Gibbs, then Reid, the WH, Gibbs again, then reporters here.... seems to be some concerted effort here to bolster up the WH and how hard done by they are about people complaining Obama's little display at the SOTU was a despicable display of bullying. Are Post reporters' afraid their favorability with the WH may be in trouble if they don't once again run out and fall over anyone critical of the WH?
Boy, the way you all stand up for him makes you wonder whether he is really strong enough to stand the rigors of being the President.

Posted by: justmyvoice | March 11, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Are you kidding me Marcus? You are an idiot because Obama had the facts wrong about their decision 100%! If Marcus was a real journalist, she would know the facts and if she was genuine and honorable, she never would have written this crap of lies!

THIS IS AN EXTREMELY IRRESPONSIBLE ARTICLE WRITTEN BY A LIBERAL HACK OF A REPORTER, SHAME ON YOU AND YOUR EDITOR!

Posted by: mmulligan5 | March 11, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

LIBERALS:

LIE 24/7
CHEAT 24/7
STEAL 24/7
SPEW RACISM 24/7
SPEW HATRED 24/7
ANTI-AMERICAN 24/7
ANTI0CAPITALISM 24/7
TAKE MONEY FROM THOSE WHO WORK AND GIVE TO THOSE WHO DONT WOTK 24/7

IVE GOT NEWS FOR YOU LIBERAL KOOKS: WE THE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN AWAKENED BY WHAT THIS ADMIN AND CONGRESS ARE DOING.

THIS IS BY FAR THE MOST CORRYPT / ILLEGAL CONGRESS IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY!

LIBS ARE GOING DOWN BIG TIME IN NOVEMBER AND 2012:-)

Posted by: mmulligan5 | March 11, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Vigor: justices are not supposed to 'represent' anyone. That is for the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The SCOTUS is supposed to interpret the law and they are supposed to do so in as unbiased a fashion as possible. It is defference to this principle of impartiality that the Justices try to remain above the partisan political fray and it was this principle that the President offended when he called out the court.

The fact that he was wrong about what he said didn't help the breach of decorum.

Posted by: andrew23boyle | March 11, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

IF THE POST HAS ANY CREDIBILITY AND DIGNITY, FIRE RUTH MARCUS! WHAT AN ANTI-AMERICAN KOOK AND LUNATIC! DO ANY OF YOU WONDER WHT NOBODY READS THE POST LIKE THEY USED TOO? WHY, BECAUSE ITS BEYOND LEFTIST AND RADICAL AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE REJECTING THIS CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: mmulligan5 | March 11, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

As petty as it may be I find it difficult to have great faith in a guy that can't even swear in the President of the United States correctly. Does Roberts' wife lay out his "outfit" every morning as well?

Posted by: hoser3 | March 11, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

The real question is whether Beck or Roberts is the BIGGEST cry-baby.

Posted by: hoser3 | March 11, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

He sounded to me as if the thinks the Supreme Court is above criticism. They've made all kinds of mistakes over the years, especially in the areas of politics, human rights and racial matters.

Supreme Court justices are not God. They don't set policy or run the U.S. once and for all. The decision President Obama criticized gave the rights set aside for individuals to rich billionaire corporate-sponsored organizations the founders couldn't even have imagined at the time they wrote the constitution.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | March 11, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Finding a rational thought (never mind rational decisions or moral reflections) in the mind of Justice Roberts would be like finding a dew drop in a cesspool. Case closed, absolutely.

Posted by: tuonela | March 11, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Voicing your objections about the decision is one thing but lying when doing so shows a serious lack of decorum and respect to the US. The SC was correct in their ruling. Under the law we are all treated equal. The Gov. cannot give one group special treatment while banning another. The law was flawed and there for illegal. Congress is responsible for writing bills (that conform to the US Constitution) and if they pass both houses then they go to the president to be signed into law. There is nothing that prevents Congress from re visiting the issue and writing a bill that meets the conditions set forth in the US Constitution. This is the way the system was designed, it's call checks and balances. It prevents anyone branch of the Gov. from becoming to powerful. What I find funny is the comments by the SO CALL LIBS who are CRYBABIES complaining now but a few months ago they we're talking out the other side of their faces and whining how their civil rights we're violated by the Patriot act. So if the Patriot act was challenged and taken to the SC and the SC ruled in favor of the plaintiff would these same LIB CRYBABAIES still hate the US and US SC??? Or would they ONCE AGAIN do their patented FLIP FLOP??? It would appear that LIBS really have do direction or goals set out and usually never reach an objective. They seem to wander aimlessly through life oblivious to the real world.

Posted by: askgees | March 11, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

nothing chief about roberts. he and the rest of you whining tbagging non-tax paying neocon wingnutz need to SHUT THE FLUCK UP!

Posted by: neec13 | March 11, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

The President was factually wrong in his interpretation of the impact of the decision. The SOTU is not the vehicle to use to express one's disagreement. It is a ceremonial event, which Obama cheapened by his petulant broadside aimed at the Court. This is just one more example of amateur hour at the White House.
What ever happened to the promise to elevate our dialogue? Guess it went the way of so many other campaign rhetorical shots.

Posted by: SavingGrace | March 11, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse

The President was factually wrong in his interpretation of the impact of the decision. The SOTU is not the vehicle to use to express one's disagreement. It is a ceremonial event, which Obama cheapened by his petulant broadside aimed at the Court. This is just one more example of amateur hour at the White House.
What ever happened to the promise to elevate our dialogue? Guess it went the way of so many other campaign rhetorical shots.

Posted by: SavingGrace | March 11, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

SavingGrace apparently is visiting from another country:

"The SOTU is not the vehicle to use to express one's disagreement. It is a ceremonial event, which Obama cheapened by his petulant broadside aimed at the Court."

Ceremonial? Every president in my 40-some year lifetime has used it to detail the issues of the past and coming year, and lay out their agenda. It's exactly the place to talk about major developments affecting Americans. You know we're talking about the State of the Union address, not the Southern Ohio Tiddlywinks Ultramarathon, right?

Posted by: B2O2 | March 11, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

The whole process went to heck when they started allowing the out-of-power party to "respond" to the state of the union address. The entire thing has become a very well-attended extension of the president's campaign.

Posted by: sheehanjc | March 11, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Hahaha! What a pie fight. "Crybaby" Reminds me of the State of the Union address - a pie fight.

Posted by: baggerts | March 11, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Amen. Act like an adult and behave during the speech. Be present so you can learn. If you're bored, so what. If you're questioned, consider whether you were wrong. If you're insulted, well, take it like a Supreme Court justice.

Work on common sense and manners.

Posted by: sarahabc | March 11, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

mgrantham2, you must be a hate filled sludge of a creature that claims to be human. You are as useless as member of the your coalition of Rethuglicans, Birthers, Deathers, Tenthers, Screamers, Teabaggers, I want my country back ultra racists, and dumber than joe the plumber. You suck worse than your war criminal hero who could not complete a sentence without notes. The POTUS whipped your rethuglikkkon stooges before the Nation. Now we get healthcare. You can now go and sit in the corner and suck your thumb.

Posted by: numbers28 | March 11, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

LIBERALS:

LIE 24/7
CHEAT 24/7
STEAL 24/7
SPEW RACISM 24/7
SPEW HATRED 24/7
ANTI-AMERICAN 24/7
ANTI0CAPITALISM 24/7
TAKE MONEY FROM THOSE WHO WORK AND GIVE TO THOSE WHO DONT WOTK 24/7

IVE GOT NEWS FOR YOU LIBERAL KOOKS: WE THE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN AWAKENED BY WHAT THIS ADMIN AND CONGRESS ARE DOING.

THIS IS BY FAR THE MOST CORRYPT / ILLEGAL CONGRESS IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY!

LIBS ARE GOING DOWN BIG TIME IN NOVEMBER AND 2012:-)
Posted by: mmulligan5
----
If anyone wonders why the conservatives lost the last election, they should read your post. Your idiocy is obvious to anyone with a brain.

Posted by: notation | March 11, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, all claim to be strict constructionists. They claim that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the original intent of the writers at the Convention in 1787. Now just how do they square this position with their decision on campaign finance, claiming that corporations have the right of free speech. Living breathing persons were given rights in the Constitution. Corporations are a legislatively created legal fictions. They were created and given the right to contract, not the right to bear arms, not the right of free speech, and not the right to assemble. Those rights are the rights of man, God created man, if you will. But when it suits the purposes of the these four judges and their Republican sponsors, their adherence to strict construction goes right out the window, just like it did in Bush v. Gore, or was it Gore v. Bush. In any event, they selected George W. Bush as President ignoring states rights that they usually champion, and here they ignored strict construction and created a corporate right to free speech.

Posted by: milesrich | March 11, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

We restrict rapid posting of multiple comments for quality reasons. You have already posted a comment within the last three minutes. Please try again later

Posted by: chin123 | March 11, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Just look at the nasty and vile comments from both sides of the issue, here.
Ruth Marcus, this is exactly why this president and his administration must be kicked out of office.
This president is responsible for the greates polarization that this nation has ever seen.
The main stream media has a big hand in this polarization, as well as the most corrupt and useless Congress (both parties) that we have experienced.
This president may be a great campaigner, but a real "leader" who can bring this nation together again, he is NOT !!!

Posted by: SeniorVet | March 11, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

enough3,

If you think Madoff ran a huge scam, Amway has ripped off millions of people for several decades, to the tune of 10s of billions of dollars:

Amway is a scam, and here's why: Amway pays out as little money as they can get away with, so they support the higher level IBOs ripping off their downline via the tool scam.

As a result, about 99% of IBOs operate at a net loss, while the top 1% make several TIMES more from their Amway tool scam than from the Amway products. This was made illegal in the UK in 2008, but our FTC is unable to pull their heads out of their butts to stop it here.

Read about it on my blog, I suggest you start here: http://tiny.cc/D5oJh and forward the information to everyone you know, so they don't get scammed.

Posted by: texansay | March 11, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

50%off ugg boots $55,ed hardy t-shirt$15 jeans,coach handbag$33,air max90,dunk,polo t-shirt$13,,lacoste t-shirt $13 air jordan for sale,$35,nfl nba jersy for sale

free shipping
accept paypal credit card
lower price fast shippment with higher quality

our website: http://ta.gg/3s3/

BEST QUALITY GUARANTEE!!
SAFTY & HONESTY GUARANTEE!!
FAST & PROMPT DELIVERY GUARANTEE!!

Packing: All the products are packed with original boxes and tags also retro cards/ code
numder


Features: AAA QUALITY, COMPETITIVE PRICE AND SERVICE
1) The goods are shipping by air express, such as EMS,the shipping time is in 5-7 business days
2) They are in stock now;
3) Various styles and color for clients' choice
4) The Products are fit for most people, because of our wholesale price

puma gucci$35,nike jordans six ring,yeezy$%5!!

new era caps$13 gucci handbags jeans,t-shirts sunglass,caps

true religion jeans$35,ca,ed hardy jeans$35

LV,CHANAL,HANDBAGS$35

NIKE SHOX+AIR MAX+TL3+OZ+NZ ONLY $35

UGG TIMBLAND+LACOSTE SHOES+ED HARDY SHOES$35

DIESEL T-SHIRT,GSTAR T-SHIRT,CA T-SHIRT,50% OFF FOR SALE $15

DIOR SUNGLASS,DG SUNGLASS$15

our website: http://ta.gg/3s3/

Posted by: chin123 | March 11, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Roberts should be impeached for lying blatantly in his confirmation hearings.

Posted by: greeenmtns | March 11, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Hear ye, hear ye, if ye can't stand the heat, please do us a favor and hang up ye robe.

Posted by: Felipe_M | March 11, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

The Supremes are just another version of the Senate. They are nothing special. They are partisan hacks, it's just that we can't vote for them. We owe them no special respect, because they are idealogues, just like any Senator who doesn't have to stand for election very often. It's a strange system. Roberts did, in fact, lie to get on the court. He is probably not the first. But there is no reason to pretend that the Justices deserve any special respect just because they are promoting a political agenda.

Posted by: PostBad887 | March 11, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

50%off ugg boots $55,ed hardy t-shirt$15 jeans,coach handbag$33,air max90,dunk,polo t-shirt$13,,lacoste t-shirt $13 air jordan for sale,$35,nfl nba jersy for sale

free shipping
accept paypal credit card
lower price fast shippment with higher quality

our website: http://www.fullmalls.com/

BEST QUALITY GUARANTEE!!
SAFTY & HONESTY GUARANTEE!!
FAST & PROMPT DELIVERY GUARANTEE!!

Packing: All the products are packed with original boxes and tags also retro cards/ code
numder


Features: AAA QUALITY, COMPETITIVE PRICE AND SERVICE
1) The goods are shipping by air express, such as EMS,the shipping time is in 5-7 business days
2) They are in stock now;
3) Various styles and color for clients' choice
4) The Products are fit for most people, because of our wholesale price

puma gucci$35,nike jordans six ring,yeezy$%5!!

new era caps$13 gucci handbags jeans,t-shirts sunglass,caps

true religion jeans$35,ca,ed hardy jeans$35

LV,CHANAL,HANDBAGS$35

NIKE SHOX+AIR MAX+TL3+OZ+NZ ONLY $35

UGG TIMBLAND+LACOSTE SHOES+ED HARDY SHOES$35

DIESEL T-SHIRT,GSTAR T-SHIRT,CA T-SHIRT,50% OFF FOR SALE $15

DIOR SUNGLASS,DG SUNGLASS$15

our website: http://www.fullmalls.com/

Posted by: chin123456 | March 11, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

50%off ugg boots $55,ed hardy t-shirt$15 jeans,coach handbag$33,air max90,dunk,polo t-shirt$13,,lacoste t-shirt $13 air jordan for sale,$35,nfl nba jersy for sale

free shipping
accept paypal credit card
lower price fast shippment with higher quality

our website: http://www.fullmalls.com/

BEST QUALITY GUARANTEE!!
SAFTY & HONESTY GUARANTEE!!
FAST & PROMPT DELIVERY GUARANTEE!!

Packing: All the products are packed with original boxes and tags also retro cards/ code
numder


Features: AAA QUALITY, COMPETITIVE PRICE AND SERVICE
1) The goods are shipping by air express, such as EMS,the shipping time is in 5-7 business days
2) They are in stock now;
3) Various styles and color for clients' choice
4) The Products are fit for most people, because of our wholesale price

puma gucci$35,nike jordans six ring,yeezy$%5!!

new era caps$13 gucci handbags jeans,t-shirts sunglass,caps

true religion jeans$35,ca,ed hardy jeans$35

LV,CHANAL,HANDBAGS$35

NIKE SHOX+AIR MAX+TL3+OZ+NZ ONLY $35

UGG TIMBLAND+LACOSTE SHOES+ED HARDY SHOES$35

DIESEL T-SHIRT,GSTAR T-SHIRT,CA T-SHIRT,50% OFF FOR SALE $15

DIOR SUNGLASS,DG SUNGLASS$15

our website: http://www.fullmalls.com/

Posted by: chin123456 | March 11, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

The Executive Rebukes The Judicial:

After President Obama was sworn in, he went slow and then on to a gallop - rushing new legislation without caring about the impact,
in terms of cost, need for revenue ( taxes ) and debt burden. There
supposedly, per the Constitution is to be a balance between all three branches of government, and Chief Justice Roberts taught that to President Obama. I have concluded that the President should put his mind in gear first before opening his mouth; right now he is a disgrace. I am a Democrat, as if that should matter.

Posted by: 3rd-PartyAdovcate | March 11, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

"It would be interesting to see these two debate. Somehow I know who would win. "

Well, Ruth wouldn't be able to show up. She'd talk about how tough it is to get good day care and then whine that the government should help her more.

I look forward to that column.

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | March 11, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

To our rather rude Republican leaning colleagues I offer the following information:

Too bad if Roberts was offended by power speaking truth to the highly politicized SCOTUS. Roberts expects decorum but what does the 80% of the population expect? We expect him to follow the Constitution which has absolutely no mention or make any reference to any corporation, let alone having any standing or rights under the Constitution - absolutely none. So for the whiny right to complain about activist judges legislating from the bench is devilishly hypocritical. But that's the right - whine, whine, whine.

Folks, corporation law was not even created until Lincoln was President, about 70+ years after the Constitution was written and ratified! So much for strict interpretation! The SCOTUS has endured a coup d'etat with Alito, Roberts and Thomas all lying/perjuring before the Congress in their confirmation hearings. Roberts and Alito spoke of the desire to abide by precedents (stare decisis), and then we know what has happened. The GOP whiners would defend Bernie Madoff if he were a Republican. GOP= the party of sore winners and sore losers, and hardly ever truthful.

Posted by: enough3 | March 11, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

I guess Roberts is just sore that the President demonstrated that Mr. Chief Justice is an idiot who can't even memorize a swearing-in ceremony.

He probably thinks the President is a bit uppity also.


Posted by: helloisanyoneoutthere | March 11, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Ruth Marcus has a wrinkled vagina.

Posted by: permagrin | March 11, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

This guy was put where he was by the bush administration so laws like this would pass. For Roberts to say that he is not part of the political process is as ignorant as it is dumb founded. Roberts is a good man, I have met his family before and served them food. Other than that, he is going to continue to ruin this country with his political beliefs.

Posted by: BMACattack | March 11, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Kudos Marcus for your smart words. Roberts looks to me like the Chief Mulla who pretends to have the absolute truth in his hands.

Posted by: detijone | March 11, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

If our Chickenhawk in Cheif President wanted to confront the Justices to their face then why didn't the whiney coward give them a chance to respond? While cowardly, it's easy to critcize someone when they can't defend themselves. 3rd rate comdeians do it all the time.

Because he's a coward, he even hides behind his teleprompters and Podium in front of 6th graders.

Obama is the most cowardly, whiney president I have seen.

Posted by: robtr | March 11, 2010 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Just goes to show, conservatives don't believe in Freedom of Speech.

I like the Second Amendment as much as the next red-blooded American male, but there is more to the Bill of Rights than number two.

And Roberts' opinion here, well that's straight number two.

Posted by: colonelpanic | March 11, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

The right-wingers that have been appointed to and now sit on the Supreme Court are agents of the families whose net worth puts them among the top 1% of U.S. citizens. Those ultra-wealthy Americans consider it their right to run the lives of the rest of us, we the peasants. The one thing that frightens the top 1% is the fact that American citizens can vote out the lackeys of untold wealth and vote in people who support a better America for Americans. That does NOT means America must embrace Communism, Socialism, Fascism, or any particular -ism. It means government will do, and do smartly, those things that government is meant to do, such as run the criminal justice system, run the military, print the money, run the public schools, and REGULATE (with strict ENFORCEMENT) the movers and shakers in the World of Finance. To counter the vote, the Supremes have decided it is okay for corporations that see U.S. law as if it were an obstacle to prosperity to advertise without limit on political issues. This may well encourage less intellectually gifted voters to vote against their own interests and vote against the interests of 99% of American citizens. Pretty soon, America will be organized along the lines of the Dark Ages: Lords of Manor and serfs. Pretty good deal for the wealthy, huh?

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | March 11, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

The comments of the Chief Justice are obviously racist.
He belongs to that group of professed Americans who prefer to see our country fail rather than to see the first black president succeed.
It is sad that he used the venue of a law school to put forward his conservative agenda.
He is a disgrace to the position of Chief Justice.
Chief Justice is not equivalent to the President of the United States.

Posted by: csavferg1 | March 11, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Ruth, did you just call Judge Roberts a "crybaby"? How did you get a job at a respected paper like the Washington Post? Agree or disagree with Chief Justice Roberts, this is shameful and unprofessional of you.

Posted by: daninny
----------------------------
I guess you crybabys stick together.

Roberts is bought and paid for by the conservative, flat-earth, wing-nuts. He should shut his yap. He doesn't have an ethical bone in his body.

If he doesn't like it, he should feel free to resign.

Posted by: xconservative | March 11, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Crybaby? Decorum? time and place? The pep rally is sinking lower and lower.

Posted by: surfbum | March 11, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

I think the Court should skip next year....they surely find the SOTU to be as boring as the next guy and Obama may feel more at ease to criticize them that way...if he feels that is his job description....I doubt that it is. But that is ( as always) for the American people to judge.

Posted by: huntyrella | March 11, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Justice Roberts is correct in his characterization of the "State of the Union." Ms. Marcus is entirely incorrect of her characterization of Justice Roberts. It would be interesting to see these two debate. Somehow I know who would win.

Posted by: maus92
--------------------------------
That's easy. Buttt heads like you would think that the knuckle-dragging crybaby Roberts won while people with a brain would think that Marcus won!

Posted by: xconservative | March 11, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Marcus,

You do understand the difference between answering a question and whining, don't you?

Posted by: slowtriathlete-washingtonpost
------------------------------
I believe she does. you, slowthinking-triathlete and inJustice Roberts are whining.

Posted by: xconservative | March 11, 2010 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama reminds me of young rooster who thinks sun come up at dawn just to hear him crow

Posted by: rlmayville | March 11, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Marcus and the other posts supporting her really do not want to accept the fact that the President was wrong and that if Judge Roberts was the crybaby you are trying to smear him as, he would have complained the very next day.

Instead, this ONLY comes up after being asked by a law student about the incident a couple of months later. Also note that the answer he gave was far shorter and to the point than Ms. Marcus's rant. I am so NOT impressed by her name-calling and mean-spirited writing.

And before the rabid bloggers start name-calling me, I'm not a republican nor a blue dog democrat but a true independent and defender of the US Constitution. I have shown this time and time again in my life so far by taking an oath of office multiple times to defend the Constitution of the United States of America from ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic so help me God.

Posted by: ARickoverNuke | March 11, 2010 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Justice Roberts is correct in his characterization of the "State of the Union." Ms. Marcus is entirely incorrect of her characterization of Justice Roberts. It would be interesting to see these two debate. Somehow I know who would win.

Posted by: maus92 | March 11, 2010 2:41 PM |

It certainly wouldn't be roberts. He's a pathetic tool of corporations and an out and out liar. Whatever happened to stare decisis, isn't that the little thing he said he would uphold in his confirmation. hearings.

Posted by: mtravali | March 11, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Obama said they reversed a century of law, which is not true. The rulling was narrow, and has been mischaracterized grossly. Obama should know better as Illinois allows corprate voices, and they have not had the impacts he predicts.

Reagans' criticism was far more justified since the reasoning the court used was a total extra-constitutional fabrication. Being a gentleman who understood the setting, he toned it down.

FDR was a schmuck when it came to the court. In reality, his ego was much like Obama's and his threats to the court were abusive of our checks and balances. His appointments were worse.

I look forward to more corporate voices, to offset the garbage corrupt corporations like the WAPO spew.

Posted by: SayWhat4 | March 11, 2010 2:57 PM

What dark hole did you crawl out of?

Posted by: mtravali | March 11, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse

I have never seen a president with such a lack of class in my life. And that includes Nixon. But keep trying to defend him, Ms. Marcus; it's obvious he doesn't have the integrity or strength to honestly fight his own battles. In the meantime, the people of our country continue to suffer in the absence of a true leader.

Posted by: jcp370 | March 11, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse

you are an left-wing, marxist, socialist marcus.

you are a crybaby. you want the supreme court to sit there and take it from our dictator, you jerk?

go live in a socialist country, where dictators dictate, like you obamacons want to do here.

well guess what, not over our dead bodies. we will fight you all the way to the grave.

FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM

NO SOCIALISM IN AMERCIA!!! NONE!!!!

Posted by: jim000122 | March 11, 2010 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Just me talking, but I think I've read a few too many uses of the words "boy" and "monkey" when refering to the President.
Didn't know you could use a keyboard under those hoods and capes.

Posted by: sidprejean | March 11, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Ms Marcus, you're wrong. Obama is the big crybaby. If he doesn't get his way, he launches these kinds of remarks - no matter where he is! What Obama doesn't seem to understand here is the SEPARATION OF POWERS. He doesn't tell the Congress or the Supreme Court what to do. He reminds me of a wannabe Third World Dictator. That said, Ms Marcus, just hold on until November and you won't have to worry about this. The Democrats will not have enough votes to pass Obama's COMMUNIST/SOCIALIST/ANYTHING-BUT-CAPITALIST AGENDA!

Posted by: georges2 | March 11, 2010 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Rogers aside, I was never sure why the SC was present at the State of the Union anyway. The Constitution says the Pres will advise the Congress about the state of the union, the SC is actually out of that loop. Given that it is a chance often for the Pres to tell Congress what he plant to do re legislation and foreign policy, and that the SC may have to ultimately rule on the legality of those plans, they really should not be there.

Posted by: atp2007 | March 11, 2010 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Affirmative-action baby Clarence probably didn't attend the SOTU for fear that he wouldn't recognize all the words in Obama's speech.

Posted by: angelas1 | March 11, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

I will be remembering Obama's inappropriate SOTU comment when I pull the lever for ANYBODY running against this leftist radical in 2012.

Posted by: hz9604
__________________________________________

Baloney, hz. I'll bet anything that until Roberts' whine, you had forgotten all about Obama criticizing the Citizens United decision, assuming you watched the SOTU at all.

Posted by: angelas1 | March 11, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Wow.

A dimwit, hypocrital, liberal, pardon the double redundancy, like Ruth Marcus quoting, Ronald Reagan!

I suppose that's progress, in a dimwit, liberal way.

Posted by: snowcpl | March 11, 2010 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the bully in the pulpit. The president should exhibit and set the standard for decorum. Instead, Obama conducted a version of "You lie" to deliberately embarrass the justices and to hype his partisan ego. But as many legal commentators have pointed out, Obama actually displayed his ignorance of the law in trying to "one up" the justices.

Posted by: judithod | March 11, 2010 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the most cowardly, whiney president I have seen.

Posted by: robtr

Well, either you're only 10 years old or you need a new prescription for yer spectacles, dearie.

Posted by: notation | March 11, 2010 10:07 PM | Report abuse

I REALLY don't think that Mr Roberts would have made this speech if a Repub President had been critical of a Supreme Court ruling in the same context. So, the logical explanation for that would be that I think that Roberts is, under his robe, just a political hack. Sorry, sad but true.

Posted by: rkerg | March 11, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Ruth you're an idiot, Reagan talked in 1988. WHEN did the court say women can kill their unborn child???? Long before that.

Posted by: washpostlogin | March 11, 2010 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Justice Roberts and all of the other conservative justices have proven to me that they vote on a party line basis.. Mitch McConnell is loving this. Name one Democrat that thinks this is a good idea.

To heck with the ordinary tax-paying voter.. let's let big business funnel all their money towards the candidates that will do their bidding.

Our votes no longer count now, thanks Justice Roberts. We all know that money plays a major role in who gets elected. Republican or Democrat, you will all suffer. The Democrats will surely suffer worse but Republicans that win their primaries will be monkies that do the bidding of their masters.. big corporations like AIG and Bank of America.

You think bail-outs with tax-payer dollars was an outrage before, just let these banks get in control or other industries like some of those who don't like environmental regulation.. (meaning that they will dump their waste wherever they want, and if you don't like it too bad!). Let's let them be in control and see what happens, like they really have our individual best interest at heart. Who believes that.. really?

America will be such a wonderful place when only the richest will be able to afford to live in areas where the environment is actually clean while the banks cater to them like slaves to a master and treat the rest of us like slaves. That's my dream of America, how about you?

I'm an independent and the result of this supreme court vote makes me want to vote for Democrats for as long as it takes to root out all of the justices that voted for letting corporate america control our country. Think about that you Republicans that actually support this non-sense about free speech.

You better hope that their are enough uninformed independents out their who don't see what has happened that can help you win the swing states.. I am not one of them and last I heard, this decision was highly unpopular in the polls and I'm personally hoping that it backfires entirely on the Republican party since it was essentially the Republican party that made this decision.

You have lost my vote and support until this matter is corrected and you need to think about how to prove to the American public that you are not simply monkies for corporate america.

It should be "We the people of the United States of America" not "We the greedy corporation of the United States of America".

Posted by: doug37 | March 11, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Roberts was picked by a firm believer in the 'culture of obedience'. And it's not being a good little boy to question 'The Court', especially when they're sitting right in front of you. But who better qualified to question these mental midgets like Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia than the former president of the Harvard Law Review? It's not like Pres. Obama has spent the past few years cuttin' brush in some dry gulch in west Texas.

Posted by: ctenwith | March 11, 2010 10:50 PM | Report abuse

They get to be justices for life. It is we the people who live with their decisions. The American people should be the last word, not the almighty Court. In Citizens United the Court lost the meaning of democracy in its constructed semantics of free speech. Who better to hold them accountable than our President? What better time than when he speaks to the nation? The Presidency is not subject to stare decisis. Unfortunately this Court thinks it isn't either.

Posted by: DCDrake | March 11, 2010 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Marcus, you have no sense of manners. Shame.

Posted by: appell81 | March 11, 2010 11:13 PM | Report abuse

George Will writes one of the best columns you will ever read, and Ruth Marcus counters with this drivel? That's pretty much par for the course.

Posted by: CaughtInAMosh | March 11, 2010 11:30 PM | Report abuse

deacon777 said: It's pure political theater devoid of any real content. Then we hear the mind-numbing speech of the opposition shortly afterward. I say do what Jefferson did - send the congress a report in writing and save everybody a lot of time.
* * * *
Let's see a Republican president be the one to initiate that return to tradition.

Posted by: mandrake | March 11, 2010 11:52 PM | Report abuse

He will get no sympathy from me regardless of how much he whines. The way they have politicized the court and clearly favor corporations over "we the people" left me with disgust for him and his court. He and the others who were responsible for that decision have lost the respect of many Americans regardless of party. I know as many Republicans who are upset over that decision as Democrats.

Posted by: sharronkm | March 11, 2010 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Ruth:"The State of the Union address is the occasion to discuss the most important issues facing the country". you must be kidding . The address is just plainly reading of a prepared text, with no question and discussion followed.

Posted by: ypcchiu | March 11, 2010 11:57 PM | Report abuse

Roberts, Lebron and Cindy Crosby are all cry babies!

Posted by: DCSPORTSFANATIC | March 11, 2010 11:59 PM | Report abuse

The Supreme Court ruling that President Obama said "reversed a century of law" and threatened to "open the floodgates for special interests...to spend without limit in our elections" certainly fits that bill. It was appropriate for the president to use the occasion to call on Congress to craft a legislative response to the decision -- even in the presence of its authors.

Well done Ms. Marcus. You're right, that was the appropriate time and place for the Presidents comments. There isn't much that's more important to our country and it's governance than our elections.

Posted by: JilliB | March 12, 2010 12:06 AM | Report abuse

Roberts above was reported as saying- anyone is free to criticize the court.-
Well..... Marcus is doing that here..Welcome to America where freedom of speach is certainly alive and well.
And by the way when it was reported above that -Roberts said according to the requirements of protocol -- has to sit there expressionless.-
That one as reported above did not sit there expressionless when above is was reported that-Thomas cited the controversy over Justice Samuel Alito's head-shaking response to Obama's remarks.-So would Roberts like to explain if Alito violated protocal ??? And what should be done about that.And maybe remember that the President of The United States certainly with all due respect as The President gave ,should have the rite to freedom of speech as well as all Americans.

Posted by: res8d7ss | March 12, 2010 12:18 AM | Report abuse

Is the non-accountable activist judge whining? or is he cloaking his contempt for those concerned with his court's compulsion to protect the power of big money interests over all others?

Posted by: tigman_2 | March 12, 2010 5:55 AM | Report abuse

The court is republican so you can't be surprised that it leans toward the haves and big business interests or that it cries foul when caught in dog piles of its own making. Any who know Constitutional black letter law understand the serious faults regarding the extension of civil rights to non living entities as it leads directly to business taking money from the working class in order to select "public servants" whose interests are in line with the Chairman of the board and his platinum parachute paydays. It is nothing more nor less than a return to slavery or as known in more recent times as Communism. Now you know exactly how Ronnie the actor defeated communism, he embraced it for all those who worshiped him.

Posted by: anOPINIONATEDsob | March 12, 2010 7:06 AM | Report abuse

mgrantham2 wrote: Why is it ok for the teleprompter-reading monkey to lie and lie and lie; but not ok for the SCOTUS to voice an honest opinion?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that the "monkey" part of your comment wasn't intended to be racist. But the GOP god of gods, Ronald Reagan was also a teleprompter reading monkey to a much higher extent. He was even told what decisions to make becuase he was only a b-grade movie actor to weasled his way out of WWII by joining the USO so he wouldn't have to face the Nazis.

Oh and by the way, Reagan was a big government, big middle class tax increasing President who created the largest national debt in our history (until Bush came along)

And let's stop the whining about activist judges conservatives.From Bush v Gore 2000 to this pro-corporation political decision this is the most activist Supreme Ct we've seen in a generation.

Posted by: EricFutterman | March 12, 2010 7:17 AM | Report abuse

Can you imagine being married to this?

Posted by: ej_smug | March 12, 2010 7:23 AM | Report abuse

Watch out, wingnut justices like Roberts don't like people making fun of them. He's a very serious man, after all.

Posted by: gwbush2323 | March 12, 2010 7:37 AM | Report abuse

It amazes me that the Republican party even exists in this country.

If your not a white male millionaire their really is no reason for you to ever vote Republican.

Ever.

It just amazes me that everyday the GOP proves you can fool some of the people all of the time.

If your not a owner of a multimillion corporation the decision does not help you.

So who the hell are you idiots supporting this decision.

Posted by: langs13 | March 12, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

Did you check out the so-called "CPAC Convention" two weeks ago yesterday?

There was Michele Bachmann, waxing moronic as only Michele Bachmann can. Almost four weeks ago on my blog, I asked the musical question, "Can Michele Bachman possibly get any stupider?" The answer, apparently, is yes. She projected on a screen a giant slide of a billboard in her home state of Minnesota which displayed a photograph of George W. Bush. Underneath the moronically smiling Dubya was this caption:

"MISS ME YET?"

Not surprisingly, this ocean of jackasses misses him terribly. So, too, does Michele Bachmann. It was quite touching really.

The fact that so many people appear to be nostalgic for the "leadership" of George W. Bush is all one needs to demonstrate the jaw-dropping stupidity of a huge segment of the American people.

The fact that so many of my fellow countrymen and women are actually nostalgic for Bush's "leadership" is all the evidence one needs to prove the jaw-dropping stupidity of a HUGE segment of the American people. I'm starting to hope that the ticket of Cheney/ Palin are elected in 2012. A population that woefully ignorant deserves everything that happens to them. I can see the campaign posters now:

"SICKIE DICK AND FASCIST BARBIE IN '12"

Go for it, America!

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

Posted by: tomdeganfrontiernetnet | March 12, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

It amazes me that the Republican party even exists in this country.

If your not a white male millionaire their really is no reason for you to ever vote Republican.
_______________________________________

Talk about a cry baby!

BTW,
Did the Supreme Court ruling reverse a century old law banning unlimited Corporate funds to Parties.
NO!
Obama Lied.

Did the Supreme Court ruling change in anyway the amount individuals or corporations can contribute to political parties?
NO!
Obama lied.

Does the Liberal media AND THIER CORPORATIONS HAVE ALL THE FREE SPEECH THEY WANT ANYTIME THEY WANT IT.
You bet they do. Why should they be the ONLY ones?

GE owns NBC. Should they be the ONLY ONES to HAVE ALL THE FREE SPEECH THEY WANT ANYTIME THEY WANT IT?

Obama owes Alito and the Public and apology for his outright Lies.

Obama is not fit to shine Roberts shows intellectually...

Where is the liberal media and Marcus the partisan hack on these lies? This is another reason we need free speech from everybody, all the time and any time they want it.

Posted by: Maxim49 | March 12, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Roberts, just like the other conservative justices on the court, is ready to cry foul only when he or his rulings are criticised. If Dick Cheney or his trained President had spoken out, Roberts would not say a word.

To Thomas, Reagan's hand-picked justice, I can only say that as someone who has written what may be the fewest opinions in the history of the court, your time to speak out on any subject wanes.

Posted by: micost51 | March 12, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts appear to think that they're above reproach by the people, via their elected officials. What you call that kind of government? A Court-ocracy?

Posted by: CardFan | March 12, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Criticizing decisions of the Supreme Court is perfectly acceptable behavior. Totally mischaracterizing the decision in a setting where there can be no rebuttal is reprehensible. The appropiate response should have been "YOU LIE".

Posted by: r1dean | March 12, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

While I use to have high regard for the U.S. Supreme Court, the appointment of Bush as President ended that naive belief! The U.S. Supreme Court "Rightwingers" in combination with their Roman Catholic mythical faith is a threat to the nation. As to the ruling in question, we haven't enough corporate criminal and corruption of the government we invite even more; all part of the downward spiral!

Posted by: kemcb | March 12, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

This is just dumb liberal nonsense. Second only to the stupid comments posted on here.

So, let me get this straight - it's ok for Obama to insult the Justices in a public forum where they can not respond...and also lie about their decision as well. But, when Roberts responds, he's a "cry baby."

Typical Democrat fractured logic.

If Obama had any guts, he would challenge the Supreme Court when they can respond. Or, is Obama afraid everyone will find out that he got his law degree on Ebay?

Posted by: TomPaine76 | March 12, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

President Obama is still in Presidential puberty, all rock n' roll, pimples and Stridex.

Roberts is no cry baby. He and the rest of us are sick and tired of this prom and rock concert.

Posted by: AlongTheWatchTowers | March 12, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Ruth, you're deliberately misleading your reader. You quote a line from the President's speech and omit (using ellipses) the salient clause "including foreign corporations" -- the very portion that caused Justice Alito to mouth the words "simply not true". The President was in fact lying when he said that the Court's ruling would allow the use of foreign money in our campaigns. Chief Justice Roberts is well within his rights to complain about having been set up in this way.

Posted by: lodine | March 12, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

What we are missing here is what Obama saidhe mention big corporation but he forgot to say BIG UNION too hey spend has much money then the other and it is not their money it is the union members money. and don't forget all the others that give money to The democrat party.We can read between the line . Also tell me where did he teach law and give me year too. thank you.

Posted by: bsrgil | March 12, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Roberts a Cry Baby??/ That is one ignorant piece of opinionated Progressive policy of demean and destry of anyone who "dares" tell it the way it is.. That is Obama is an uninformed, Idealog of a major Narcisstic Elitist Fascist Camp... Face it Robets was asked aquestion and he responded MONTHS after The Messiah ran a "pooted Plant" State of the union Circus...HURRAH for HONESTY.. Down with Empty Rethoric by Oblahblah!!!

Posted by: redhawk2 | March 12, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

I thought the president's criticism of the Citizens United ruling was gratuitous, rude and historically wrong. The SCOTUS ruled in 1886 that, per the 14th Amendment, corporations are, in law, "persons," entitled to "due process" protection under the 5th Amendment. Whether or not foreign-owned corporations are "U.S. persons" is another question that the Citizens United case didn't address.
But the president was bemoaning that some McCain-Feingold constrictions on campaign financing were declared unconstitutional as well as ill-advised and ineffective.
There are different and better methods available to regulate how election campaigns are financed.

Posted by: dmh86201 | March 12, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

"But it is also a ceremonial, even magisterial occasion of state"

Oh, please. The importance of it is strictly for show invented in the age of cameras. Early Presidents and Congressmen avoided it like the plague. Jefferson just sent a memo...literally. Let's not act like this is some catechisim of solemnity. The Constitution only requires that the President make some report to Congress. It says nothing about the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the SOC, or anybody.

Posted by: Daedulus | March 12, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

I am concerned that so many of your readers do not understand that the Supreme Court must be neutral (although they do give unpopular decisions for either conservatives or liberals) and that criticism by the Executive Branch in front of the Court and to their faces destroys that air of neutrality. I don't care what Reagan did, it is inappropriate for the President to criticize the Court to their faces. He could have used a press conference, speech, or some other forum to dress down the Court. I happen to think that their decision on this matter was deplorable, but this does not give the egocentric President the right to dress them down at the State of the Union address. Also reacall, that the Justices boycotted Clinton's State of the Union message after the Monica Lewinsky caper. So the Court's lack of participation at the State of the Union address would be nothing new. I've never heard any President criticize the military commanders who are in attendance at that event, so why pick on the Court be the President Reagan or Obama? This is the Executive Branch crossing too far into the business of the Judicial Branch. I do agree with many of your readers that the State of the Union message is nothing more than political theater...on both sides of the aisle. It's a Constitutional that has no real purpose except to try to advance the ideology of the President who happens to be in office.

Posted by: murzek1 | March 12, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Just read George Will's piece...makes Ruth Marcus' arguments seem, well, juvenile and near sighted. The sight of unformed military leaders seems a little creepy to me, not to mention Reagan's introduction of American heroes and common folk. Such treacle.

Posted by: Daedulus | March 12, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Why did you ". . ." the part about foreign powers making unlimited campaign contributions in the Obama quote? Did you think none of us would remember that bit?

Posted by: davidgoodman76 | March 12, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Are you prepared to say the same thing about the late President Reagan? Both President Reagan and President Obama were well within their rights to call out the "High Court" if they disagreed with their respective rulings. It is their forum afterall.

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 11, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

YES, I'D SAY THAT REAGAN HAD NO CLASS EITHER. It's their forum but one that must be handled with dignity and respect for all of us which neither Reagan nor Obama did. Both were egocentric and had little regard for others but a lot for themselves!

Posted by: murzek1 | March 12, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

I WISH SOMEONE WOULD CHECK HIS BANK ACCOUNTS.ALLOWING BIG MONEY COMPANIES TO DONATE MONEY TO A POLITICIAN IS CORRUPTING OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.

Posted by: SISSD1 | March 12, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

If Roberts can't stand the heat, he should resign.

As for those out there who have their knickers into a twist about decorum, Alito's shaking his head when the Prez rebuffed the court for its Citizens United decision, was not proper decorum. Morover, former presidents have openly criticized court decisions at SUAs. This is not new.

Who do Roberts and Thomas think they are, anyway? Absolute monarchs?

Posted by: Gatsby10 | March 12, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Obama, our Community Organizer-in-Chief and otherwise known as Abu Hussein from Kenya, lies when he opens his Caesar-like mouth, on any subject. First - he lied again when he said the foreign corporations can now give money to political candidates; do you get it? HE LIED!!! To the Congress and to us!!!

Posted by: jrc_mrc | March 12, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I read a lot of ACORN brownshirts and teacher union thugs writing here in defense of Abu Hussein from Kenya. Well, the stimulus money for them, some $8.7 billion (!!!), pays them $16/hr for their valuable services - writing blogs, "doing" census work, voting by fraud, registering non-existent voters...

Posted by: jrc_mrc | March 12, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Some of these commentators are sad, pitiful creatures, like jrc-mrc who don't mind exposed thier absolute ignorance to the world. Justice Roberts lost my respect when he made that campaign finance decision in direct contradiction of what he testified in Congress. Bad law and no integrity. Bad combination.

Posted by: withersb | March 12, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

The State of the Union has devolved into political theater and an unseemly production at that as evidenced by President Obama's failure at statesmanship like leadership.

There is a historical background of decorum and protocol in the SOTU presentation that has been ignored or at least degraded in recent times and exacerbated in President Obama's first shameful effort at partisanship when speaking to the American people.

President Obama's comments regarding the recent decision of the SCOTUS were completely inappropriate for the specific venue of the SOTU. The SCOTUS has no comparable forum with which to respond to scurrilous political partisanship and misstatements of fact.

Ruth Marcus' opinion, not withstanding her ignorance of historical protocol and decorum, was simply juvenile journalism and beneath the standards of a world class publication.

Posted by: rjanicki | March 13, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

No Ruth, YOU are a big cry baby. I though after your first appearance on the Fox News Special Report panel you might have an ounce of deceny in your head.

Apparently I was wrong.

Posted by: MikesAmerica | March 15, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Interesting how the Supreme Court is for free speech for Corporations, but not the President.

Posted by: ralph5 | March 16, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company