HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Serious question - has a ...

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 08:08 PM

Serious question - has a Chief Justice ever been as rude to a President of the United States

Last edited Wed Mar 27, 2013, 08:55 PM - Edit history (1)

as Roberts was to President Obama today?

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/john-roberts-swipes-obama-doma.php
<snip>
Chief Justice John Roberts took a swipe at President Obama during oral arguments Wednesday, arguing that the president should stop executing the parts of the Defense of Marriage Act he deems unconstitutional rather than relying on the courts to pave the way.

“If he has made a determination that executing the law by enforcing the terms is unconstitutional, I don’t see why he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions,” Roberts said of Obama, “and execute not only the statute, but do it consistent with his view of the Constitution, rather than saying, oh, we’ll wait till the Supreme Court tells us we have no choice.”

40 replies, 3242 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply Serious question - has a Chief Justice ever been as rude to a President of the United States (Original post)
malaise Mar 2013 OP
Scuba Mar 2013 #1
Auntie Bush Mar 2013 #5
hedgehog Mar 2013 #2
graham4anything Mar 2013 #3
Hekate Mar 2013 #11
bhikkhu Mar 2013 #4
Bolo Boffin Mar 2013 #21
Volaris Mar 2013 #35
Faygo Kid Mar 2013 #6
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #8
msanthrope Mar 2013 #10
malaise Mar 2013 #12
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #7
Summer Hathaway Mar 2013 #9
malaise Mar 2013 #15
Cha Mar 2013 #20
ashling Mar 2013 #24
VOX Mar 2013 #28
dgibby Mar 2013 #34
sikofit3 Mar 2013 #36
madrchsod Mar 2013 #13
malaise Mar 2013 #29
green for victory Mar 2013 #14
Cha Mar 2013 #22
Occulus Mar 2013 #39
Cha Mar 2013 #40
Arctic Dave Mar 2013 #16
spanone Mar 2013 #17
malaise Mar 2013 #27
Samantha Mar 2013 #18
Zen Democrat Mar 2013 #32
Volaris Mar 2013 #37
Enrique Mar 2013 #19
JI7 Mar 2013 #23
Hayabusa Mar 2013 #25
zipplewrath Mar 2013 #26
lastlib Mar 2013 #30
woo me with science Mar 2013 #31
Swede Atlanta Mar 2013 #33
Volaris Mar 2013 #38

Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 08:11 PM

1. Roberts: "I'm a mealy-mouthed little prick."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 08:17 PM

5. He's a big mealy-mouth with a little prick/dick.

That's what you were saying but it needed saying again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 08:13 PM

2. Nullification?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 08:14 PM

3. Sounds like President Obama has roped the dopes yet again. President Obama is amazing,isn't he?

 

Now Justice Roberts is going to have to look(for him)once again politically incorrect(for his side) and side on President Obama's.
(I am talking about Roberts going against his political beliefs and forcing himself to side with the President.)

Wish the world was 1/10th as smart as President Obama.

Justice Roberts just got ropeadoped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #3)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 08:43 PM

11. I think Roberts just granted Obama permission to dump DOMA in the dustbin of history himself

I heard that and I kind of went, "Oh really, Mr. Chief Justice? Shirking your own job are you? Don't have the courage of your own convictions?"

And then I laughed out loud.

I love the smell of rope-a-dope in the afternoon. Smells so much like flop sweat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 08:16 PM

4. I think the courts are supposed to decide what's constitutional

not the president?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 11:55 PM

21. Thank you. Judicial review is part of our constitutional system. Executive review is not. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 07:56 PM

35. Only if your a DEMOCRATIC President.

Otherwise, the Judicary just concedes that you (apperently) can do whatever the hell you want. Presidential Powers, and whatnot.

But yeah, I think on the merits of this Case, DOMA will come down, and IF Roberts votes to TAKE it down, he WILL be labeled a "dirty traitor" by the rightwing loons.

Rope-a-dope does indeed, smell pretty good, don't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 08:18 PM

6. Well, there was that Taney-Lincoln dustup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faygo Kid (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 08:19 PM

8. Good point, I forgot about Justice Taney

 

Another no love lost

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faygo Kid (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 08:42 PM

10. I've been calling Roberts 'Taney' for a while now. I hope History bites him on the ass. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faygo Kid (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 08:55 PM

12. Had to refresh myself

Thanks all - this one is just as bad - how interesting that Obama is a Lincoln fan

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 08:18 PM

7. Yup

 

During the early years of the FDR administration. Tere was no love lost between FDR and the court, to the point FDR proposed increasing the size of the court and packing it with liberals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 08:39 PM

9. I've been around since Ike was prez ...

And I've never seen the amount of rudeness directed at a president that Obama has been subjected to since his first day on the job - by judges, politicians, elected office-holders, the MSM, etc.

Despite the blatantly outrageous behavior of Dubya during his tenure - the lies, the
economic malfeasance, the idiocy displayed in public (especially on the international stage), the deliberate misinformation, the 'catapulting of the propaganda', the displays of almost unbelievable stupidity, etc. - Dems managed to tone down their rhetoric out of respect for the office of the presidency, despite having little respect for the man himself.

Call me crazy (and you might) but I don't believe for an instant that the rudeness - and downright vitriol - directed at Obama would have been quite so blatant were he white.

The GOP know their audience - which is comprised of a lot of people who think a black man doesn't 'deserve' respect on an equal par with white folk, regardless of the position he holds - and, as a result, understand that however poorly behaved they are towards the POTUS, it will be accepted, if not cheered, by their adherents.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #9)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 09:52 PM

15. True but there hae been some serious dislike between folks before

and yes I too believe racism is a factor

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #9)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 11:53 PM

20. Well stated, Summer Hathaway..

thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #9)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 07:04 AM

24. You are crazy!

(for the record, you told me to say that)

You are also perfectly correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #9)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 08:37 AM

28. Nail-head, say hello to the hammer...

'Cause it just whacked you squarely atop your noggin.

Perfectly stated, SH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #9)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 11:32 AM

34. Truman was POTUS when I was born.

As a white person growing up in the segregated South, I absolutely agree. The dog whistles are deafening. So sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #9)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 08:02 PM

36. I agree

Your so correct! We have said this on here for a while but each new disrespect towards POTUS just makes it that much more clearer, not that it needs to be.......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 09:11 PM

13. thom hartman has a few choice words about the supremes...

basically we have a supreme court that can strike down anything that is passed and signed by our elected officials. this is not democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madrchsod (Reply #13)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 08:38 AM

29. Agree 100%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 09:16 PM

14. Ohhh look! The savior of the Health Insurance Ripoff and Enslavement Act

 

has now gone back to being a bad guy.

How quickly people forget...Just a year ago Roberts was a Good Guy!
Whiplash!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #14)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 11:57 PM

22. Yes, we have Obamacare.. too bad

for the whiners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 08:34 PM

39. Have any people died since the ACA's passage

who would NOT have died had the full effect of the law been immediate upon its passage?

Edited to add: I do NOT expect you to have the basic courage of an honest answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Occulus (Reply #39)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 11:16 PM

40. Obviously some people who call you a liar in so many words don't

deserve any respect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 10:21 PM

16. I have to agree with him.

 

This is another "leading from behind" Obama stance.

Heaven forbid he take a stand on this.

Shit, if I remember correctly his opinion of SSM was "evolving". Only after polls became more favorable did he change his mind.

As a proud father of a lesbian daughter, I found his weaseling, chickenshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 10:22 PM

17. asshole. this President gets NO respect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 08:26 AM

27. Very true

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 11:32 PM

18. I don't have a problem with this for various reasons

Obama has sort of called out the Supreme Court in his state of the union addresses. Particularly, I am thinking about the remarks he made about Citizens United. I believe I remember Roberts sitting there shaking his head no to President Obama's remarks. I don't think President Obama thought he was "rude" to the Supreme Court justices but in honest disagreement and had the right to be publicly critical. Roberts does not see his remarks as rude either but within fair bounds.

But best of all, Roberts shows his ignorance. Our Federal Government is divided into 3 branches for a reason: checks and balances. Even if the Executive Branch (that would be the President) is a Constitutional lawyer, he has no Constitutional authority to make decisions on the legality of a law; that is the Supreme Court's job, and of course Roberts knows that....

In this particular administration, Republicans would pounce on any given opening President Obama gave them to draft articles of impeachment against him for usurping the rights Constitutionally granted to the Legislative Branch or the Judicial Branch . Within the last week or so, there was a report of one Southern politician who said opposing the African-American President is always good politics in the South.... That act, the act of filing impeachment charges, would be extremely good red meat to the throw to the right-wing base of the Republican party.

But simply as a Republican, I don't think Roberts wants to go down in history as helping to usher in the rights of same-sex marriage and I believe he resents being put into a position where he will have to do just that. So he is pointing his finger at President Obama saying, "He could have taken care of this." It is another one of those political hot potatoes some politicians don't want to leave their fingerprints on. (Before I get flamed for saying that I would like to volunteer the information that when gay marriage was on the ballot in Maryland, I proudly voted yes and cried with happiness the next day when I saw gay couples' reaction to the passage of this law.)

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #18)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 08:43 AM

32. That was Alito shaking his head at the SOTU.

The only reason Roberts would make those remarks would be if he planned to vote to strike. Otherwise, it wouldn't matter whatever Obama did or didn't do on this matter. And, a president can't strike down a law passed by congress 17 years ago.

DOMA is done. There's no doubt in my mind that Kennedy will vote to strike. I think Roberts doesn't want to look bad in history and will go with Kennedy. If this were a regular liberal/conservative split on the Court, Roberts would go with the conservatives. But he's in a pickle holding a far right philosophy in changing times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zen Democrat (Reply #32)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 08:05 PM

37. I agree, I think this will come back 6-3, with Roberts and Kennedy in the Majority.

Only way youre wrong, is if there is some obscure (and otherwise GLARING) technichality by which they decide it's not even supposed to be in front of them (which I don't think will happen, lest they wouldn't have taken it in the first place).

It's comming down. Make no mistake, the rabble-rousers of the Moral Right will put on a Public display of Rage not seen since at least Clinton was President, and will try and label it this generation's Roe decision, but it IS COMMING DOWN, and I think they know thay can't stop it anymore.

Rejoice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 11:38 PM

19. not rude, imo

he expressed his disagreement respectfully. I don't know about his legal reasoning, I'm just talking about the tone.

Plenty of judges took shots at Bush for example, and probably in sharper language.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 12:39 AM

23. i don't care as long as he ends up voting the right way

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 08:12 AM

25. So, he doesn't want to do his job?

Impeach his ass, then!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 08:24 AM

26. Madison and Jefferson

One might find that Jefferson was treated the worst. Not sure how one would measure though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 08:38 AM

30. "Dear" Mr. Roberts,

"It is emphatically the province of the judiciary to say what the law is."
--Marshall, CJ, Marbury v. Madison, 1803.

(or had you forgotten that little tidbit of high-school civics?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 08:42 AM

31. Oh for pete's sake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Original post)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 11:04 AM

33. I agree the CJ engaged in inappropriate polemic during the DOMA oral arguments but.....

 

He does raise an important point. A law that is valid on its terms, i.e. it has been passed by Congress and signed by the President and satisfies Constitutional muster, should be enforced by the Executive Branch.

Obama and the Executive have Constitutional duties to enforce the laws of the land. Part of those responsibilities include defending the laws of the land against legal challenges by way of the Solicitor General. Enforcement and defense are obviously subject to Administration priorities and resources.

While I have viewed DOMA as patently unconstitutional from the beginning, I believe the Obama administration's public pronouncement they will not defend DOMA is arguably a violation of their constitutional duties. It is not the Executive's responsibility or constitutional power to decide if a law is constitutional. Even if the Administration does not believe it is constitutional, that is a decision left to the courts. Every 1st year law student learns the concept of Judicial Review under Marbury vs. Madison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #33)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 08:23 PM

38. All true, but I want to ask two questions

(because I'm an idiot I guess lol and can't divine what your answers might be)

1) what does this say about Federal Ban of MJ, in either Medical or Recreational use allowed by states. I ask because we seem to be doing a lot of bitching around here about AttyGen Holder trying to trash Cali pot shops in favor of Federal Power...

2) "enforcement", combined with Executive Order Power, suggests that Obama (or any other President) can, under the guise that EO can only limit the scope of a Law, rather than expand it, simply say "well, I have to enforce this thing I beleive to be Unconstitutional at worst, and a waste of time and energy at best, so I'm limiting the Federal Sentence for weed to practically nothing." In that case, what is the real, effective difference between "enforcing" the law, and not doing so at all...a paper trail?

Again, I'm asking because I'm not a lawyer, and for the purposes of this discussion, that means im stupid lol.

What do you think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread