Who Shall Mediate Roberts v. Obama?
Political sabers have been incessantly rattling across different branches of the government ever since the Magna Carta. But usually it's between the White House and Congress. We learned in third grade social studies about that stoic aerie of men and women who clarify the law, wear baggy robes, and in Beltway terms are more secluded than J.D. Salinger.
The Supreme Court is not traditionally a collective that picks fights with other politicians. (Something about impartiality and being a "judge.") But after a feline swipe at the SCOTUS by President Obama during the State of the Union speech regarding their recent ruling that affected campaign finance, the presidential barbs set off Chief Justice John Roberts, who vented some frustration to some law students in Alabama:
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. ... To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we are there.
Bam! Adjudicated. Your thoughts, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, on the "troubling" nature of the speech?
What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections - drowning out the voices of average Americans. The President has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response
Counterbam! It's getting more intense than the dissent on a 5-4 ruling.
I suppose whenever two branches thumb their leaves at each other, it's only natural for the third party to intervene. That means perhaps Congress should vote on who's right or wrong. And you know how efficient they are at agreeing on matters.