Thursday, January 28, 2010

Being the Supreme Court II

When President Obama addressed the Supreme Court directly in his State of Union speech, it was good to see that the Justices are human after all. With these words Justice Alito was visibly upset:
With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems.
Justice Alito's obvious disapproval with the President at least shows that he's human. During the confirmation of Justice Sotomayor it was like everyone believed that the Justices were robots. Alito's reaction wasn't quite a "you lied" moment but it was as close as it will probably get from a starchy-black robbed Justice who sits on the highest court of the land who holds such indefinite life-time power. Okay, I'm not feeling the Supreme Court as of late.

Some of the other Justices also seemed displeased with President Obama's words. They seemed surprised that he would address them directly. But I don't understand this. After all, they are chosen by the President even though there is a separation of the three branches of government. Personally, I loved the moment!

14 comments:

The Write Girl said...

Hi Judith,

I completely agree. It was quite surprising to hear the Supreme Court's ruling. I hope Congress does the right thing and try to amend this. What was the Supreme Court thinking anyway?

JOHN O'LEARY said...

US Presidents - especially Republican ones - have been teeing off on the Supreme Court for decades. It's an American pastime.

Judith Ellis said...

The decision was indeed unjust, Katina. I was watching Justice Sotomayor. She did not look to left or right and she was sitting right next to Justice Alito. LOL! This was her first SOTU. It was good to see her among the Justices.

Judith Ellis said...

Hmm, John, this makes me wonder if the response has to do with this particular president. I like your point here in another post about activist judges, a term that conservatives like to use.

JOHN O'LEARY said...

It's probably frustrating - no matter how much power you wield in the legal domain - to have to listen to non-stop criticism by politicians in their campaign (or SOTU) speeches without having a similar forum to respond. (Of course in THIS case I happen to agree with the criticism, but I can understand their apparent annoyance.)

Judith Ellis said...

Being the president has its privileges, John. :-)

Tremas said...

Right after the SCOTUS made that ruling, the first thing I thought was, "This will NOT end well".

Why do I get the feeling, that the GOP will try and recruit donors from all over the world, yet throw a fit if the Dems get one from say, Canada?

Judith Ellis said...

Tremas - No foreign donations by any party. Period!

Tremas said...

I agree. I mean, how would it look, if we proudly pumped cash into a foreign election?

Judith Ellis said...

Uh, yeah! But Canada is such a gentle nation. :-) It so different across the border, eh? Way more grit on this side. But I'm a city girl and prefer the grit, but I also escape to northern Michigan. It's another country up there too.

zorro said...

I see you mention Canada.
Heres some commentary on Canada's banking system.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/opinion/01krugman.html?hp

Judith Ellis said...

"Above all, Canada's experience seems to support those who say that the way to keep banking safe is to keep it boring — that is, to limit the extent to which banks can take on risk. The United States used to have a boring banking system, but Reagan-era deregulation made things dangerously interesting. Canada, by contrast, has maintained a happy tedium."

Excellent Krugman piece, Zorro! I especially appreciate the above. It feeds into a lot of what I've been thinking lately. Thanks for posting the link. I appreciate them quite a lot.

zorro said...

Doesn't the idea of making something boring put perspective on the on-going mantra of passion?
Maybe here and there, just doing a good job and being satisfied with that
isn't such a bad idea.
I don't remember people in my parents generation equating passion and work, yet they always did excellent work.

Judith Ellis said...

Yes, I agree, about my parent's generation and my grandparent's generation. But there are most certainly differences in personality and people will express their work differently; they all can do excellent work. But I guess you are responding to the "call" for passion collectively. I assume you think that it is part of the cultural hype that leads to excessive things such as financial engineering as opposed to actual engineering. Passion is replaced with steadiness. But it need not be.