Contact
Subscribe


Don't Badmouth the Black Robes

Jan 28, 2010
By .
Politics & Current Events

Ted Olson is irritated that President Obama criticized SCOTUS' decision in Citizens United v. FEC in the SOTUA last night.

“Other presidents have spoken out and scolded the Court before, usually liberals, like Franklin Roosevelt,” says Olson. “It’s not appropriate. Presidents should respect the justices.” The Citizens United case, he adds, “was not about corporations taking over the political process, but enabling everyone to participate in the political process and protecting free speech.”

I happen to think Mr. Olson was on the right side in Citizens United — a case I'll try to blog about when I'm not quite so under the gun. I also like the policy view he is taking in Perry v. Schwartzenegger, even if I think his legal theory is rather more tenuous under current law than he does.

That said, I have to ask: really, Ted, really? It's liberals who mostly scold the Court? Because I could have sworn that I heard over the last decade that the Supreme Court was making Americans less safe whenever they took the most modest step to place limits on executive power to conduct the Great War on Terror. I can also remember a whole lot of caterwauling over SCOTUS abolishing the death penalty for juveniles, or saying that consensual adult same-sex intercourse can't be criminalized. I could have sworn that most of that criticism didn't come from "liberals", whatever that word means any more.

Of course, as illustrated by a recent example Radley Balko pointed out, political characterizations that require the terms "liberal" or "conservative" to operate can generally be relied upon to be bullshit.

Last 5 posts by Ken

6 Comments
Tags

6 Comments

  1. Haakon  •  Jan 28, 2010 @12:39 pm

    Two points: First, my problem wasn't Obama's voicing his displeasure of the US Supreme Court opinion, but the factual inaccuracies that prompted the mouthed comments of Justice Alito. He asserted that the court overturned longstanding precedence, but as Linda Greenhouse points out, Obama was mistaken; thus, his scolding was demagogic.

    Second, political characterizations are merely generalizations. Generalizations are a major step to gaining wisdom. If the generalization is generally correct, it is helpful. If it is incorrect, then it should be discarded. I certainly have not read a sufficient number of State of the Union addresses to make such a generalization as to which presidents have criticized the Supreme Court. But, do you recall George W. Bush criticizing Hamdan, Boumediene, or any other SCOTUS decisions that went against his administration? Your examples (though I commend you for giving examples), do not address presidents, to which Olson specifically, by my reading, limits his comments.

  2. jdub  •  Jan 28, 2010 @2:39 pm

    [listening to Ezra]
    [mouthing "Not true, not true.]
    /meta

  3. Anna  •  Jan 28, 2010 @9:42 pm

    I agree with Haakon. Olson said "presidents… usually liberals." I don't remember President Bush caterwauling over any of the SC decisions during his term. Can you please cite one where he publicly criticized the SC?

    That said, I disagree with Olson. I think presidents can critique/criticize the justices when they want to. What I didn't like was Obama's choice of venue to air his criticism, and the fact that his understanding of the SC decision is wrong. I read the phrase "mendacious demagoguery" applied to it. I think that fits.

  4. Patrick  •  Jan 29, 2010 @4:38 am

    Bush attempted to amend the Constitution in response to a state supreme court decision. Bush made quite a bit of noise about that one.

  5. Haakon  •  Jan 29, 2010 @1:28 pm

    Patrick,

    Thanks for joining. A few distinctions: 1. The Massachusett[e]s Supreme Court was not exactly under the Bush Regime's chain of command. 2. MA's decision was held on state grounds. 3. Bush Co's ostensible thrust of opposition (if memory serves me) was not condemnation of the court on the merits, but rather in support of a federal constitutional amendment to prevent courts from applying similar reasoning to the U.S. Constitution, or requiring Full Faith and Credit of SSM marriages from other states.

    The Bush Junta is arguably blameworthy for their policy in this matter, but do you really think they were trying to heap scorn on the SC of MA? Obama clearly attacked (and misrepresented) SCOTUS on the merits of their Citizens United ruling.

  6. BradK  •  Jan 30, 2010 @4:37 pm

    …political characterizations that require the terms “liberal” or “conservative” to operate can generally be relied upon to be bullshit.

    Only to free-thinking Libertarians, unfortunately.