Did Obama breach etiquette?

[TotallyOz]

My mouth opened at the President's speech last night when he criticized the Supreme Court over their recent ruling. Did others gasp when they heard this? Was it appropriate for a President? Did he go overboard?

[AdamSmith]

Whoops! Did not see Oz's post here until after I had posted in the Politics forum:

http://www.maleescortreview.com/forum/index.php?/topic/4274-judicial-temperament/

I agree with what he said. And certainly the right is not meek in criticizing SCOTUS decisions they don't like. But I can't think of a past instance where the executive poked his finger in the court's eye right when they were sitting there before him.

[TampaYankee]

My mouth opened at the President's speech last night when he criticized the Supreme Court over their recent ruling. Did others gasp when they heard this? Was it appropriate for a President? Did he go overboard?

Obama was well within his purview to address the Supreme Court Decision at the State of the Union. The purpose of the SOTU is to inform Congress of the present State of the Union including recent accomplishments, immediate problems which should be addressed, longer-term issues that need consideration and pending legislation to address those problems and issues.

He felt that the SCOTUS created a problem for the country that needs to be addressed. It was incumbent upon him to surface the problem and propose and encourage some course of action to remedy the problem. The fact that he disagreed with the SCOTUS should not be ignored or soft peddled. He was very blunt with his assessment of the SCOTUS ruling and that may have set some back on their heels. (I dobt is set back the dissenting Justices.) However, I look iknterpret it as a measure of his disapproval of and concern for the ruling. It suprised me but then so did Alito's reaction. Personally, I'm glad he surfaced the issue as emphatically as he did if it prompts action.

[Guest Conway]

Not only did he breach etiquette. It seems that he could use a basic civics lesson.

The President needs to learn that he's not a candidate anymore and that holding public office requires a certain decorum - a matter to which he seems to be completely oblivious.

The President thumbing his nose at the members of the Supreme Court, who are his guests at the state of the union, is no more acceptable than a member of congress shouting "you lie!" at the President during a speech. It is like inviting someone to your house for a dinner party for the exclusive purpose of dressing them down in front of other guests for some disagreement that you have with them.

That kind of behavior is far more indicative of what one would expect from the Real Housewives of Atlanta than from the President of the United States.

More troubling to me was the President's charge to Congress to pass new laws essentially overturning the court's decision in Citizens United. First, his comments showed a complete lack of understanding of the details of the case. This is rather surprising given the fact that the President was editor of the Law Review at Harvard.

Second, the call for this counter-legislation shows the lack of consideration and respect that the President has for the Constitution which he has sworn to uphold and defend as leader of our country.

I think what the President's behavior shows is that he is willing to mitigate pretty much anything- even if it is the Constitution of the United States if that is what it takes to establish his political agenda.

That, folks, is behavior more indicative of what we expect from Third World Banana Republic dictators than what we should expect from the President of the United States.

No matter what our political affiliation, we deserve representational government that respects the foundation on which it was built.

[RA1]

Hear. Hear.

Not only what Conway wrote but from what I can gather, BO was wrong on his facts. The law that was passed 100 years ago forbade corporations from contributing directly to candidates. The current ruling says corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on a view point, just like every natural person can, overturning a law about 8 years old.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest Conway]

Hear. Hear.

Not only what Conway wrote but from what I can gather, BO was wrong on his facts. The law that was passed 100 years ago forbade corporations from contributing directly to candidates. The current ruling says corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on a view point, just like every natural person can, overturning a law about 8 years old.

Best regards,

RA1

Linda Greenhouse of the NY Times did a good piece on Citizens United and Obama's obfuscation of the facts surrounding it in an editorial yesterday:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/justice-alitos-reaction/

[manticore]

Setting aside the details of whether Obama misrepresented the issues in this specific case--

I see nothing wrong with commenting on a decision during the SOTU address. It is in the spirit of our system that relies on checks and balances among the branches of government.

The judiciary rebukes Congress or the President from time to time. The judiciary rebukes itself (just read the dissent in this case). The President can and should rebuke the other branches as he sees fit.

This was not comparable to a heckler blurting out "you lie" in the middle of a speech. Obama had the floor and was entitled to speak his mind.

[AdamSmith]

There is a complementary viewpoint that the justices ought not even attend this convocation of the political branches. The press reports that John Paul Stevens never does, viewing it as inappropriate.

I loved another report today that Rehnquist once skipped a SOTU address because it conflicted with his watercolor class at the local YMCA! Having paid $25 for the series of classes, he was not going to waste any of them.

Apart from his judicial philosophy, the more I read about Rehnquist, the more I like him.

(Especially compared with his predecessor as Chief, Warren Burger. Another delightful bit about Rehnquist, from Woodward and Armstrong's The Brethren: When he was an associate justice under Burger, on nice days he and his clerks often took their bag lunches outside to eat, sitting on some benches in the Court's yard. One day they were doing this, and noticed a steward setting up a card table and folding chairs some distance away, then setting the table with a white tablecloth, china and silver. Then out came Burger and his clerks, who sat down to be served formally by the steward. Burger's pomposity and stuffed-shirtedness already being an item of some amusement to the other justices, this sight sent Rehnquist into such an uncontrollable laughing fit that he had to go inside.)

[KYTOP]

Not only did he breach etiquette. It seems that he could use a basic civics lesson.

The President needs to learn that he's not a candidate anymore and that holding public office requires a certain decorum - a matter to which he seems to be completely oblivious.

The President thumbing his nose at the members of the Supreme Court, who are his guests at the state of the union, is no more acceptable than a member of congress shouting "you lie!" at the President during a speech. It is like inviting someone to your house for a dinner party for the exclusive purpose of dressing them down in front of other guests for some disagreement that you have with them.

That kind of behavior is far more indicative of what one would expect from the Real Housewives of Atlanta than from the President of the United States.

More troubling to me was the President's charge to Congress to pass new laws essentially overturning the court's decision in Citizens United. First, his comments showed a complete lack of understanding of the details of the case. This is rather surprising given the fact that the President was editor of the Law Review at Harvard.

Second, the call for this counter-legislation shows the lack of consideration and respect that the President has for the Constitution which he has sworn to uphold and defend as leader of our country.

I think what the President's behavior shows is that he is willing to mitigate pretty much anything- even if it is the Constitution of the United States if that is what it takes to establish his political agenda.

That, folks, is behavior more indicative of what we expect from Third World Banana Republic dictators than what we should expect from the President of the United States.

No matter what our political affiliation, we deserve representational government that respects the foundation on which it was built.

I must admit, Conway I am in agreement with you on this one.

[Guest BewareofNick]

I must admit, Conway I am in agreement with you on this one.

I too agree but only to a point. This was a very bad decision by the SCOTUS. It allows for too much foreign influence in our elections for one (Rupert Murdoch, anyone?) and it conveys a right upon corporations that they should not have.

However, for the POTUS to scold the SCOTUS at the SOTU (lol)was as inappropriate as Joe Wilson's outburst.

[Guest Conway]

I too agree but only to a point. This was a very bad decision by the SCOTUS. It allows for too much foreign influence in our elections for one (Rupert Murdoch, anyone?) and it conveys a right upon corporations that they should not have.

However, for the POTUS to scold the SCOTUS at the SOTU (lol)was as inappropriate as Joe Wilson's outburst.

I think that's entirely fair. As a citizen employed by corporate America perhaps I am more accepting of the position that corporations and unions can represent the interests of employees and members as individuals than others are.

However, I understand the concern of those opposed to the Citizens United ruling.

My criticism of the President is not a criticism of his opposition to the Citizens United Decision. It is of the lack of decorum he exhibited by calling out the justices in the State of the Union address. I can't imagine his predecessor, any of the other contenders for the Presidency in 2008, or any other American President doing such a thing.

It is behavior that is well beneath the dignity assigned to the American Presidency.