Letters to the Editor

Political march

October 24, 2010

Advertisement

To the editor:

Can it be true that the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court would encourage it?

Chief Justice John Roberts says justices could opt out of attending the annual State of the Union address of the president. Yes, Justice Samuel Alito shook his head, mouthing “not true” and declared he would not attend again. Dissent is his right, but is attendance or absence?

1) Individual choice to attend or not attend is a right, but who should listen to the president’s address and opinions if not ALL the members of Congress and ALL the Supreme Court members? Attendance is not agreement or endorsement. Attendance is important to the state of the nation. The executive is one of three branches of our system of government.

2) The chief justice has thereby exposed or encouraged the court to be seen as a partisan agency, rather than a participant in the promotion of the common good.

If I regret anything about the last 30 years, especially the last 16 years, it is the partisanship of politics. Each side must speak and march in lockstep. Does a dissenting view make for enemies or a conversation? It is increasingly difficult to vote a split ticket.

Comments

KayCee 4 years, 5 months ago

I really don't see the Supreme Court as needing to be there, they decide on issues after the Congress passes laws. The Congress is there as the represetatives of the nation, and that is what the president is to address. Of course we usally see the president promoting his political views, but all of Washington is POLITICS.
So why can't the justices opt out, just like I turn off the TV when all I hear is the same old same.

Mike Ford 4 years, 5 months ago

they were elected to be the partisan rubber stamps they are and they don't like hearing opposing views while they go to Koch Brothers functions and take part in hunting junkets in Louisiana. They are the original partisans. They steal elections and misinterpret laws to help their partisan friends. Naw, they're not partisan... no...

notajayhawk 4 years, 5 months ago

"they were elected to be the partisan rubber stamps they are"

Pssst: hey, tuschie - they weren't elected.

Did you say anything else interesting after that? I was laughing too hard to read the rest of your post.

jafs 4 years, 5 months ago

They will probably be based on challenging the federal government's right to require we all purchase health insurance.

Jimo 4 years, 5 months ago

'Yes, Justice Samuel Alito shook his head, mouthing “not true” '

Not true about what? We forget so soon.

Obama: "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections."

Allito: "Not true."

Who spoke truth here?

Roberts just doesn't want to show up and face the consequences of his judicial activism - a Congress bought and paid for by too big to fail corporate banks, a place where Congressman rush to the cameras of the Saudi-owned Fox News, a Congress where the members speak in hushed Chinese to their campaign contributors about how legislation has been altered in their favor.

mr_right_wing 4 years, 5 months ago

I'm not sure on this one (suprised?) This could start a whole thing where only republicans come to hear the republican President, and likewise for democrats.

Let's at least try and maintain the illusion of being polite.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.