Scene at State of the Union "Very Troubling" Says Supreme Court Chief Justice

Don't look for Chief Justice John Roberts at President Obama's next State of the Union address.

Roberts told an audience of University of Alabama law students that the scene at this year's SOTU was "very troubling." It wasn't President Obama's criticism of the court that bothered him. (In fact, he said some people's political positions give them an obligation to criticize certain Supreme Court rulings.)

 

But he's not crazy about the optics. "There is the issue of the setting, the circumstances, and the decorum," Roberts 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 the requirements of protocol-- has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

 

Justice Antonin Scalia stopped going to the presidential addresses years ago because justices "sit there like bumps on a log." Roberts sounds like he might join his colleague next year: "To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we're there."

 

Some bloggers aren't terribly sympathetic to Roberts' plight. David Kurtz at Talking Points Memo doesn't see any reason the justices should insulate themselves from the "rough and tumble" of politics, and Glenn Greenwald at Salon sees Roberts' "petty, self-absorbed" "petulance" as symptomatic of a nationwide judicial attitude problem.

Roberts' remarks do smack a bit of whining. He can't handle "free speech," while in attendance at a State of the Union address? Gee, corporations get to influence political decisions, but the president should shut up about the Supremes? At the root of the resentment is the court's Citizens United ruling from January which has set off disapproval from both sides of the aisle.

But look, the court is not beyond making unpopular decisions or even wrong ones. It has a long history of both. As a matter of decorum, it seems proper for all three branches of government to be in attendance at the State of the Union, though the State of the Union has, in recent years, become more of a campaign appearance than a report card on the nation's health.

Maybe we ought to be asking what we expect from a State of the Union address and what it ought to be for. Exactly what should its purpose be? A report on the state of the nation? An opportunity for a president to outline his legislative agenda and national priorities to Congress? Both? Can you do one without the other?

The president is required by the Constitution to give updates to Congress, not the Supreme Court. On the one hand, I get where Roberts is coming from. But if Roberts feels like the court is being ganged up on for its opinions, that's just too bad, and I think it shows poorly on the court if they choose to opt out of the address because they can't take the heat of public opinion. It's the price of politics in America, and not only is the court not above that fray; sometimes they damned well deserve a pummeling for getting it wrong.

Incidentally, one of the perks of the job is that they don't have to worry about taking heat from the court of public opinion, and perhaps they should be grateful they're not voted out of office by a very unhappy electorate. At the same time, we should be grateful they're not voted in or out by the public. The court doesn't answer to the public, it answers to the law. Judges are judges because, generally, they are learned men and women in a profession that requires countless hours of study. The average citizen is neither equipped to understand the law or to judge those who are. We're not legal scholars.