About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Fox & Friends agrees it's "troubling" that the Supreme Court can't react to SOTU criticism, thinks they shouldn't "show up"

March 10, 2010 6:51 am ET

From the March 10 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Marker (March 10, 2010 7:27 am ET)
      10  
      How about Fox and the repug supreme justices not show up. They wouldn't be missed.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Ouroborus (March 10, 2010 9:32 am ET)
        10  
        At the bare minimum, Clarence Thomas could take the day off without anyone noticing; he falls asleep during court and asks questions about once every leap year. Just prop up an inflatable doll in a robe and give it a sign that says 'I'M WITH SCALIA' and there's be little overt change.

        At least then he could stay home and sleep in his comfy bed...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by IRONY 101 (March 10, 2010 9:40 am ET)
          9  
          Thomas has gone on record saying that oral arguments before the Supreme Court are a waste of time.

          Yea...that's the guy I want hearing my case. <sarcasm>
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Lizinbklyn (March 10, 2010 10:31 am ET)
            7  
            Little snicker trivia, for anyone who doesn't know . .

            Clarence Thomas officiated the ceremony at Pillboy's last wedding [eyeroll] . .

            Report Abuse
          • Author by Russ139 (March 10, 2010 11:06 am ET)
            4  
            That's an easy one to understand. From his election to the bench, Thomas has been the least willing to ask questions, or even speak, at the oral hearings.

            That suggests that either:
            1) he has already made up his mind on how to vote
            2) he can't think of any pertinent questions to ask
            3) he's not comfortable with "real time" back-and-forth debate with top rung lawyers
            4) he doesn't want to show his hand until the other conservative Justices show their's.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by txthinker (March 10, 2010 11:54 am ET)
              5  
              Or more likely:
              5) he's in way over his head and never should have been nominated in the first place.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by grmce (March 10, 2010 1:11 pm ET)
                  1
                Despite my lack of respect for Thomas as a jurist it is possible to competently hear (operative word "hear") a plea without asking questions - particularly if it is comprehensively thought out.

                Often questions from an appeals court bench are designed more to demonstrate the judge's superior wit than to illuminate the argument. Whilst such questioning can serve to lighten tense moments it can also be deliberately used to disrupt counsel's presentation of argument.

                Check out his Honour's judgements or, more importantly, those judgements with which he concurs. That will give you a better idea of what is and isn't going on between his ears.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by magnolialover (March 10, 2010 3:14 pm ET)
                  2  
                  Agreed on that one.

                  Or, as someone else said, Thomas basically should have a shirt that says, "I'm with Scalia" with an arrow pointing in the correct direction to his seat on the bench.
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by progressivevoicedaily (March 10, 2010 10:03 am ET)
        7  
        Exactly, the very fact that he wants to speak out against the President show's how political this guy is. What a right wing tool bag, to think that a corporation should have the same rights as an individual. If that's the case they should put a cap on all political contributions at say....$2,500 dollars. Of course right winger's would figure out how to circumvent the system again. Face it, they realized they can't compete with true grassroots movements like we saw with Obama's campaign, and the only way they can see themselves competing in the future is to let as much corporate money flood the process as possible. The White wing is VERY DESPERATE!!!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (March 10, 2010 7:42 am ET)
      8  
      I think it demonstrates poor form for Chief Justice Roberts to whine about it while giving a speech before a friendly audience. Let him keep his non-judicial opinions to himself until he retires and writes his memoirs.

      And if Roberts is put off by politics perhaps he should consider avoiding court decisions in which he votes in a manner that suggests pure politics.

      BTW, has FOX & Friends ever covered the substantive effects of the Supreme Court's ruling about which the President was complaining?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by epkklk851 (March 10, 2010 8:00 am ET)
      4  
      I wish the Foxtarts and the Foxterds would just sit there and not give us their opinions. And if they can't manage, then don't show up. I wouldn't miss you.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (March 10, 2010 8:31 am ET)
      3  
      They can't comment on the SOTU? I'm pretty sure, as American citizens, and ones whose job is pretty much secure for the rest of their lives, they can say whatever it is they want. Scalia and Thomas, and other Supremes do so on a regular basis.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (March 10, 2010 8:35 am ET)
        9  
        Essentially, Roberts is bitching about having to maintain the pretense that the Supreme Court is apolitical.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dogbreath (March 10, 2010 9:52 am ET)
          2  
          When we all know it is as political as the other branches of government. They go through this eerie pretext of acting "above" politics when everyone knows that their decisions have as much, if not more, consequence on us than anything the Congress pumps out.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by progressivevoicedaily (March 10, 2010 10:01 am ET)
          3  
          Exactly, the very fact that he wants to speak out against the President show's how political this guy is. What a right wing tool bag, to think that a corporation should have the same rights as an individual. If that's the case they should put a cap on all political contributions at say....$2,500 dollars. Of course right winger's would figure out how to circumvent the system again. Face it, they realized they can't compete with true grassroots movements like we saw with Obama's campaign, and the only way they can see themselves competing in the future is to let as much corporate money flood the process as possible. The White wing is VERY DESPERATE!!!
          Report Abuse
    • Author by bintx (March 10, 2010 8:40 am ET)
      11  
      First, there is no Constitutional mandate that there even BE a SOTU address. All the Constitution requires is that the President report "from time to time" on the state of the Union. Many presidents in the past simply sent written reports to Congress . . . I think that this should become the habit again. Eliminates the political theater.

      Second, the S.Ct. is there as invited guests of Congress and the President. They have NO official function at the SOTU address.

      Third, I'm not sure where the idea that somehow the S.Ct. is above reproach. They are simply nine legal scholars who have been appointed to the bench. They are NOT a panel of gods.

      Fourth, Roberts seems to think that he has some sort of authority over the Executive Branch and by extension, the President. Since he claims to be a "strict constructionist," I think he should go back and read his Constitution. He doesn't.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (March 10, 2010 8:53 am ET)
        4  
        Well said. In my opinion, Roberts is a Corporate Toady specifically chosen by Bush to usher in pro-corporate decisions.

        Furthermore, it's hard to feel sorry for people who have a lifetime appointment to what is arguably one of the most prestigious and cushy jobs in government.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mjh (March 10, 2010 4:54 pm ET)
           
        "Fourth, Roberts seems to think that he has some sort of authority over the Executive Branch and by extension, the President. Since he claims to be a "strict constructionist," I think he should go back and read his Constitution. He doesn't."



        And while you're at it, John, please -- memorize the Oath of Office . . .

        Report Abuse
    • Author by progressivevoicedaily (March 10, 2010 9:57 am ET)
      6  
      I love how when right wingers aren't in control they feel they don't have to play or follow the rules. They act like little children.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dave (March 10, 2010 10:05 am ET)
        1 3
        Why does anybody show up? They are completely scripted. Why dosen't the CnC just address the nation from the Oval office? The applause every 15 seconds is annoying.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by friedbergboy1422 (March 10, 2010 10:22 am ET)
          5  
          Can you imagine how outraged your right-winger counterparts would be if Obama addressed the country from the Oval Office instead of addressing both chambers?

          There would be all sorts of stories containing faux outrage, etc.

          What I don't get is why none of the students (at least according to news reports), asked him about his decision giving corporations so many rights.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by dogbreath (March 10, 2010 10:36 am ET)
            3  
            They probably weren't allowed to ask questions. He is, after all, a Supreme Court justice and obviously doesn't like his judgment to be questioned.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (March 10, 2010 10:38 am ET)
          1  
          There is no Constitutional requirement that there be an address, just that the President report to Congress from time to time on the state of the Union and his/her recommendations. The SOTU is more about cohesion between the legislative and executive branches. Reporting to the nation from the Oval office would not meet that requirement, because it's not about informing the nation, but a written report to Congress, like those which were presented on many occasions in the past, would. The last modern president to present a written report was Jimmy Carter in 1981.

          It's political theater. I rarely watch it . . . it's just for show.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by dogbreath (March 10, 2010 10:42 am ET)
            1  
            It is useless but I always watch it. I like the theatrics of it all for some ridiculous reason.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (March 10, 2010 11:10 am ET)
            1  
            It is political theater, but similar to the inauguration, it not only showcases American democracy to our nation, but to the world.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by magnolialover (March 10, 2010 3:17 pm ET)
                 
              It also generally lays out the President's agenda for the next year, and what he and his staff are going to focus on, and it's also been the place where big new initiatives were launched.

              I wouldn't call it complete political theatre, but there is some of that going on for certain. Like the juvenille republicans who were holding up signs during the SOTU this year, as if they were at a Final 4 basketball game or something.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by Far Left but Always Right (March 10, 2010 11:08 am ET)
      1  
      Like lets.... break protocal and like.... stand up and like.... say yipppey.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Russ139 (March 10, 2010 11:19 am ET)
      3  
      The current conservative majority on the court (Kennedy as a conservative) have it very wrong when they think of themselves as "strict constitutionalists." It's all subjective, a matter of perspective. Nothing is concrete. Nothing is "strict."

      That's why we have a Supreme Court of the United States. So, stop the nonsense about "strict constitutionalists."

      The Bill of Rights, so dear to us as a protector of our rights, was added to The Constitution because of still fresh memories of what took place under British control only a few years before. It was not added`meant to be an expression of inalienable rights.

      The Constitution is fluid - not concrete. The Supreme Court's role is to interpret it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (March 10, 2010 11:40 am ET)
        1  
        Exactly, and the last few "strict constructionism" interpretations fell far short of the mark. I hear people complain all the time about "activist judges," what we have sitting on the bench in the S.Ct. right now is a very activist court. They are legislating from the bench.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by seahawks123 (March 10, 2010 12:14 pm ET)
      1 5
      You guys hate Clarence Thomas because he's a black guy that suceeded without the help of affirmative action. Actually thinks for himself and follows the Constitution instead of legislate from the bench like Ginsberg and the other socialists on the court.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by raddave43 (March 10, 2010 12:37 pm ET)
        2 1
        So agreeing that corperations have the same legal status as individuals is not "lestilating from the bench?" Stopping Florida from doing a manual recount in 2000 and declaring Bush the President wasn't "legilating from the Bench?"
        Report Abuse
        • Author by raddave43 (March 10, 2010 12:39 pm ET)
          1  
          Can you name one Supreme Court decision in which the "socialist judges" were legislating from the bench?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (March 10, 2010 12:53 pm ET)
            1 1
            seabird has no clue how the S.Ct. even works. Just repeating something he heard on Fox/hate talk radio or read on freerepublic.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by raddave43 (March 10, 2010 1:06 pm ET)
              1  
              I just wanted to see if he would respond and if so, what would he say.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (March 10, 2010 12:52 pm ET)
        2  
        Huh?

        Sorry, but I don't care for Clarence Thomas because he really doesn't do much except agree with Scalia. You obviously have absolutely no idea who Thomas is at all. Not sure why affirmative action is mentioned at all . . . the logic of the statement is somewhat bizarre.

        I also have a very, very low opinion of ANY judge who inserts political ideology into a legal decision, doesn't matter what the political ideology is. The current court is made up of a few real justices and at least four political ideologues who were chosen because of their very strident political ideology. A judge should be impartial and have NO political ideology. At least four of our current S.Ct. are anything but . . . you are also incorrect about Thomas, et buds, following the Constitution. They have, on several recent occasions, overturned established precedent and have created new law from the bench. Textbook cases of legislating from the bench. Just because you agree with the decision doesn't mean that the justices who handed it down aren't activist, seabird.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (March 10, 2010 3:19 pm ET)
           
        Actually, Thomas did get a lot of help from affirmative action when he was going to college, but you know, don't let that get in the way of your incorrect "facts".
        Report Abuse
    • Author by grmce (March 10, 2010 1:39 pm ET)
      1  
      It is important to remember that under the Common Law tradition there is a tension between two important concepts. Firstly, there is stare decisis(the law of precedent) which provides an element of consistency regarding the legal environment in which people operate (the need for certainty). Juxtaposed against this the second element, the continuing, unfolding nature of the law wherein, as our collective knowledge grows we notice elements of the law that were previously not noticed - the most obvious area is with regard to "community standards". The "separate but equal" doctrine in Brown v School Board of Education is an example of which most people in the U.S. should be aware. With the benefit of hindsight one could say that the "separate but equal" notion was always nonsense, but that would be to fail to recognise the social and moral development that had been unfolding since the Constitution had been ratified nearly two centuries before.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Leftylib (March 10, 2010 1:59 pm ET)
           
        Maybe it would be a good idea for the Justices to skip SOTU speeches. Of course they are "political pep rallies" for the party in the White House. So what? Does anyone really want to argue that Republican Presidents have never used the speech to engage in some boasting about their administration's accomplishments?
        Report Abuse