Daily Archives: March 10, 2010


John Roberts is pissed and he wants the whole world to know it.

“It’s no secret that many think the fierce mood of partisanship is routinely crippling Washington.”

That’s the going meme.

“While most of the fur flies between the major parties in Congress — with the president weighing in occasionally to keep his party leaders on message — this week has seen an outbreak of hostilities in a less traditional venue: between the Supreme Court and the president.”

“Less traditional”? Sez you.

“In a controversy stretching back to January’s State of the Union Address, Chief Justice John Roberts told a group of law students at the University of Alabama that President Obama’s very public dissent from the Court’s Citizens United ruling, which effectively rolled back most existing restraints on corporate funding of political campaigns, was a provocation to the court’s cherished independence.”

Independence form what? Surely not from the “Federalist Society.”

“On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances, and the decorum,” said Roberts. “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 the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”

Here’s the video.

“Some of the lawmakers on hand interrupted Obama’s remarks with cheers of support. But television cameras panned the Court members in attendance and caught Justice Samuel Alito mouthing the words “not true.”
In Washington and in public debate, response to the dust-up split down partisan lines. Conservatives took issue with Obama’s criticism of the court, and liberals decried Alito’s breach of protocol. Outside of Washington, though, recent polling has shown that the decision is widely unpopular with Americans across the ideological spectrum.”

Clearly Roberts was “shocked” because he’s used to negroes appearing before the court like this.

“Of course, Roberts wasn’t always so hands-off with the Supreme Court. When he worked for the Reagan administration, he was an aggressive public advocate pressuring the Court and was privately highly critical of how it organized its own business.”

Well what’s good for the goose apparently isn’t good for the gander in The House of Roberts.

“And for all the hubbub, it’s worth recalling that smack-downs between the two branches of government, while rare, are not unheard of. In his memoir, President Clinton was critical of the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision that ended that year’s election; Nixon fumed about the Burger Court’s ruling that he couldn’t protect himself during Watergate with “executive privilege;” and way back in 1936, Franklin Roosevelt proposed an additional three justices to the Court so that he could appoint them himself and skew the Court’s decisions in favor of his New Deal proposals.
But it is somewhat rare that these battles are as public or intense as this one appears to be getting. That may be because the Court’s decision was an historic one justifying intense debate, or it may be because politics are getting more conflict-driven across the board.”

Oh I don’t think so. It’s just the same old crap that’s been going on since “Reconstruction.”

As for the lily-white Roberts clan, check out Little Lord Fauntleroy in short pants with bow tie.


I suspect he has a future in . . . .Musical Theater.

In which case he should take his cue from Harold.

That is unless he’s been watching Glee, in which case his role model may be — dare I say it?

As for Pop Roberts, next time President Obama riles you, just think of something pleasant to calm yourself down.

There. Don’t you feel better already?