Obama Homepage

Question: Do you agree w chief justice robert that obama's use of congress to denounce the sct was "very troubling"?

(Posted by: Susiepolls2008 on 2010-03-10 13:03:35)

It is not at all unusual in American history for the executive branch of the federal government (the White House, under the control of either party) to disagree with the judicial branch (Supreme Court). What is considerably more unusual is for the chief executive of the executive branch (Barack Obama) to look down on the members of said Supreme Court in public at a joint session of Congress and to their faces denounce their independent actions. And then to receive a resounding ovation from fellow Democrats standing to applaud and cheer Obama as the surrounded justices sat mute, motionless and unable to respond. http:/ / latimesblogs.latimes.com/ washington/ 2010/ 03/ john- roberts- obama- .html?utm_source=feedburner &utm_medium=feed &utm_campaign=Feed %3A+topoftheticket+ %28Top+of+the+Ticket %29

Posted by: regular american on 2010-03-10, 13:06:41

Knowing the character and track record of each man, I would agree with Roberts without hesitation, before I'd back what 0bama has to say on this.

Posted by: MrSmokesTooMuch on 2010-03-10, 13:07:01

I think it's troubling that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is whining like a four year old.

Posted by: robzuc97 on 2010-03-10, 13:08:30

What is "very troubling " is that the three houses of our government, by Constitutional Law, are EQUAL, although the Executive has been autocratic (even more so today) for years! Those same "Democrats " applauding were the same ones thirty-years ago that were over-turning cars and throwing rocks at the police in leftist demonstrations... No; unfortunately, they did not all "fade away ".

Posted by: Librals our Reely Smorter on 2010-03-10, 13:09:02

Yes. The last thing we need in DC is Chicago style thuggery.

Posted by: tribeca_belle on 2010-03-10, 13:10:36

Not at all. I thought that President Obama's remarks were very mild considering the seriousness of the bad effects of the Citizens United case.

Posted by: truth seeker on 2010-03-10, 13:10:53

If Bush had said exactly the same thing under exactly the same circumstances, right wingers would have all given him a standing ovation and proclaimed him to be a Great American.

Posted by: Phil M on 2010-03-10, 13:13:29

Roberts didn't say anything that you posted... This is what he said: "I have no problems with that. On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum. 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. " He's talking about decorum, you're using a bloggers take on something much larger.

Posted by: Ryan on 2010-03-10, 13:14:02

No, I don't agree is Justic Roberts. The court made a terrible decision allowing any corporation or special interest group to give as much money as they want to a political candidate. That is pretty much the definition of corruption.

Posted by: Greg on 2010-03-10, 13:19:37

What is even more unusual is that the SCOTUS is not supposed to publicly react and reply to a president. This is the first time it has ever been done. I do agree that Obama should not have said it where he did, but every president has criticized the SCOTUS.

Posted by: raymond on 2010-03-10, 15:36:45

Thats just fine, Let obama have his day, The court will have theirs, Once when they declare the health care bill unconstitutional and repeal it. And the second time around win they declare obama impeached and guilty and to be removed from office.