Jan 27, 2010

President Obama Takes a Pot Shot at the Supreme Court!


I just finished watching our President give The State of the Union Address.  I must say first of all that he is a very gifted speaker.  It was also good to be reminded of our Congress' efforts to cut taxes this past year.  I do however have a single problem with the speech given tonight.

The State of The Union Address should not be a speech used to bully another branch of government.  Unlike Congress who cheers, claps or remains seated in partisan fashion, the Supreme Court respectfully declines from showing any partiality.  This should be commended, but it was not tonight.  President Obama purposely called them out on a ruling that he disagreed with and asked that Congress work to correct it.  Was their ruling good or bad?  It does not matter!  This was not the time or place to call into question an entire branch of government that helps to balance the separation of powers.

We were told tonight that the American people have a lack of trust when they see Congress vote along party lines.  Yet, we are willing to single out the only non-partisan branch of government.  They sat in the front, with their hands in their laps, as they took the bullying in stride.  That is except for one who reacted as if in shock.  Justice Alito quietly shook his head and mouthed "that's not true" as the rest of the Justices sat in silence.  I firmly respect our President, and I ask that he would extend respect to our other branches of government as well.  This is especially true in a speech like this.  One that should not be used for pot shots or political posturing.

The clip can be seen here:  President Obama vs. The Supreme Court

7 comments:

Erik Olson said...

Your funny Nate!!! The only non-partisan branch of gov't??? Almost all there votes are 5-4 split down left-right sides. Non-partisan...that's a good one!!! I didn't know you doing a comedy blog...I will have to monitor more closely.

Inside Nate's Head said...

Political ideologies and party affiliations are two different things. None of the Justices are registered to a party and thus do not engage in the petty squabbling of the Republicans and Democrats. There is also a reason why a Democratic President can be upset at a predominantly left court, and that is because they make decisions that are not based on party leanings even if they may be biased toward their personal views as all humans are.

I myself tend to lean conservative, but I am an independent and have voted for Democrats, Republicans, and other independents. It is intellectual suicide to walk and vote in lock step union with a political party.

Inside Nate's Head said...

I am also not anti-Obama . . . I Tweeted this quote during his speech long before he singled out the Justices, because I yhought it was a great moment: "America must always stand for freedom and human dignity"-- President Obama

Mike Johnson said...

It just goes to show the arrogance he is accused of expressing, along with the Chicago style politics.

Erik Olson said...

Nate: I was just giving you junk.

Its not divided down Demo-Rep lines but still very divided. The same 5 right leaning judges vote together all the time (same for 4 left judges). There is no independent thinking. These things are more predictable than the sun.

As for the decision Obama was calling them out on...it was one of the worst decisions and will have widespread impacts to our elections. The average Joe like you and I will have even less of a voice. Companies and labor unions with very deep pockets can now use their dollars to directly run ads for or against candidates. They have buying power that no one else has. If we thought business was too involved in gov't...it is only going to get worse.

I think Obama was trying to cause a controversy so more Americans would talk about the decision and find out how bad it is.

Keep up the blogging!!! Thanks.

Inside Nate's Head said...

Thanks for the comments man!

He who has been changed said...

The reason for split votes on the Court is not Dems vs Reps but actually between those who believe our Constitution is a fixed document with their job being to understand it and the framers intent vs those who believe that it is fluid and should be interpreted in light of current PC ideas. Since the current President subscribes to the latter thought the other group is a hindrance to his agenda.