t wasn't enough that Mr. Obama, for the first time in modern history,

fullstop.

The decision of the Supreme court has fell still born, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.

* Letter (7 April 1832) on the ruling in Worcester v. Georgia
Andrew Jackson, 7th President of the United States.

* John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!
o As quoted in The American Conflict (1865) by Horace Greely, as a reaction to the Supreme Court ruling in Worcester v. Georgia (1832)

Andrew Jackson (attributed).

So right there the author is completely wrong - there is at least ONE other US President who has gone head to head with SCOTUS. And Jackson was far more disrespectful of SCOTUS than Obama has been.

Of course, the author did put a weasel clause into his statement when he said '...in modern history...' but that only serves to emphasize just how far he's reaching with his commentary. Let us be clear - not only has the office of the President called SCOTUS to account in the past, but it is the DUTY of the office of the President to do so if and when - in good conscious - they believe SCOTUS has made a bad decision.

Based on the weasel comment alone, this article is a biased piece of crap and should be (and can be) safely ignored.

Additional information about the author, Jan Crawford.

she's a friend of Justice Roberts and Stevens. kinda makes me wonder about her right there.

albo:
Andrew Jackson didn't have any class, either, Weaver95, and if you're using him as an excuse for one branch of government to treat the judicial branch--that can't fight back--like crap, that's lame.

read up on the background behind Jackson's reasons for disagreeing with SCOTUS. you might find them more relevant to modern events than you realize.

I stand by my comments - if the President believes SCOTUS is wrong, then he has a duty to say so.

Was that article written by a 16-year-old girl?

albo: Weaver95: I stand by my comments - if the President believes SCOTUS is wrong, then he has a duty to say so

but to call them out in a state of the union address when he knows they can't respond or rebutt?

that's not classy and actually quite immature, especially considering it was a blatant political jab, not a policy point since the opinion was already delivered.

I disagree - that is exactly the place and time to do so. It's the 'state of the union address'. If the President feels SCOTUS is f*cking up, that's the venue for his commentary.

NewportBarGuy: Was that article written by a 16-year-old girl?

no, she's a lawyer.

Weaver95: t wasn't enough that Mr. Obama, for the first time in modern history,

fullstop.

The decision of the Supreme court has fell still born, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.

* Letter (7 April 1832) on the ruling in Worcester v. Georgia
Andrew Jackson, 7th President of the United States.

* John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!
o As quoted in The American Conflict (1865) by Horace Greely, as a reaction to the Supreme Court ruling in Worcester v. Georgia (1832)

Andrew Jackson (attributed).

So right there the author is completely wrong - there is at least ONE other US President who has gone head to head with SCOTUS. And Jackson was far more disrespectful of SCOTUS than Obama has been.

Of course, the author did put a weasel clause into his statement when he said '...in modern history...' but that only serves to emphasize just how far he's reaching with his commentary. Let us be clear - not only has the office of the President called SCOTUS to account in the past, but it is the DUTY of the office of the President to do so if and when - in good conscious - they believe SCOTUS has made a bad decision.

Based on the weasel comment alone, this article is a biased piece of crap and should be (and can be) safely ignored.

I know you are 180 years old Weaver ;), but, for most of us, "Modern History" means in the last 40-50 years. I think a lot of people also use it to mean "since TV was invented".

You point out later that you considered that a weasel statement, but, I think it exactly goes to the "since TV was invented" use of the term. IE, since SOTU have been seen by a wide audience live.

I don't disagree necessarily that the article was weak overall, but, I think he used that point fairly.

albo: i can't believe you think that Obama calling out a co-equal branch of government on the floor of the House, knowing full well that they can't respond or rebut any of his statements either there or later, was an appropriate display of decorum on the part of the president.

If the President wanted to make his point forcefully, then yes - that was the time and place for it. And you know what? i'm glad he did it. SCOTUS needs someone to occasionally remind them that they are not running the show.

albo: Weaver95: I stand by my comments - if the President believes SCOTUS is wrong, then he has a duty to say so

but to call them out in a state of the union address when he knows they can't respond or rebutt?

that's not classy and actually quite immature, especially considering it was a blatant political jab, not a policy point since the opinion was already delivered.

Roberts has responded, sounding like any other politician. Unless you're Joe Wilson, no one can rebut the President during a during a joint session speech. They do it to the media afterwards, just like His Holiness the Chief Justice.

And who says the SCOTUS is above reproach? They are of equal importance and power as the other two branches of government according to the Constitution, and those two get slammed all the time. They deserve to be slapped around a bit after how political they've become in the past decade, especially after Scalia opened them up to public scrutiny with that interview. Placating to their esteem turns them into a panel of aloof monarchs.

Lumpmoose: They deserve to be slapped around a bit after how political they've become in the past decade, especially after Scalia opened them up to public scrutiny with that interview. Placating to their esteem turns them into a panel of aloof monarchs.

Indeed. SCOTUS deserves no greater level of respect than anyone ELSE in government. And to think that somehow the black robes are somehow more important than Congress or the President is very dangerous.

Roberts will never stand for the little guy vs the big guy.
he hasn't yet and won't in the future. he's a company man.

albo: Weaver95: I disagree - that is exactly the place and time to do so. It's the 'state of the union address'. If the President feels SCOTUS is f*cking up, that's the venue for his commentary.

he can hold a press conference anytime he wants.

i can't believe you think that Obama calling out a co-equal branch of government on the floor of the House, knowing full well that they can't respond or rebut any of his statements either there or later, was an appropriate display of decorum on the part of the president.

So I guess you have a problem with the president addressing any concerns he might have with congress during the state of union address as well?

Let's not forget FDR and his campaign to expand the size of the Supreme Court so he could pack it with judges sympathetic to the New Deal.

Weaver95: Additional information about the author, Jan Crawford.

she's a friend of Justice Roberts and Stevens. kinda makes me wonder about her right there.

Thanks Weaver!

Otherwise Just Fine: Weaver95: Additional information about the author, Jan Crawford.

she's a friend of Justice Roberts and Stevens. kinda makes me wonder about her right there.

Thanks Weaver!

to tell the truth, I didn't know anything about her until I started poking around online about the author. the more you read, the more the picture comes into focus. She's a cheerleader for the SCOTUS authoritarians.

libbynomore2:
I notice you had to go all the way back to Andrew Jackson to find another President to have attacked the court.

so because something happened more than 6 months ago, it's automatically invalid?

those who do not learn from history yadda yadda....

whimofsteel: As long as Congress defines corporations as 'people', the court is going to have to allow them the same rights as real people.

Get your congress weasel to change the definition, and then we can change the price of a congressman way donations are made.

Know how I know you don't know what you are talking about?

albo: Weaver95: I disagree - that is exactly the place and time to do so. It's the 'state of the union address'. If the President feels SCOTUS is f*cking up, that's the venue for his commentary.

he can hold a press conference anytime he wants.

i can't believe you think that Obama calling out a co-equal branch of government on the floor of the House, knowing full well that they can't respond or rebut any of his statements either there or later, was an appropriate display of decorum on the part of the president.

Didn't the Chief Justice responding and rebut at a later date, hence this article about the administration responding, trying to get the last word?

/I don't think they were trying to 'get the last word,' but that's what the article implies