Gibbs Fires Back At Chief Justice Roberts Over Obama Criticism

[kpete]

Source: Huffington Post

The White House fired back at Justice John Roberts Tuesday night, after the Supreme Court Chief told a crowd that he found it "very troubling" that President Barack Obama would criticize the court during his State of the Union address.

In a statement sent to reporters, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the only troubling thing was the 5-4 ruling by the court, which said that corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money advocating on behalf of candidates in elections. Roberts leads the court.

"What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections - drowning out the voices of average Americans," Gibbs said. "The President has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response."



Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/09/gibbs-fires-back-at-chief_n_492633.html

[av8rdave]

1. I wish someone could just tell Roberts face to face:

Hey, you were part of a terrible, terrible decision.


Now you own it. Live with the fallout.

[ShockediSay]

33. speaking of face to face, I plan on mooning the right wing of SCOTUS

next time I get in front of it.

Protected free speech, RIGHT!

[aquart]

34. Roberts: Leader of the new Filthy Five.

[HopeHoops]

36. I'd just moon Roberts.

One ass deserves another.

[jaxx]

2. Good for Gibbs.

Roberts is the rightwings so called worst nightmare....an activist judge. Now they think it's ok.

[RKP5637]

3. Good, Roberts should be told off. Too pompous! The SC should also have term limits IMO. n/t

[wordpix]

16. I agree about the term limits---why should they get paid for life?

Also, it should be easier to impeach them---there should be a "fire" clause.

[24601]

28. It IS ieasy to impeach - it takes only a majority vote in the House

of Representatives. But conviction, now that is difficult, and Bill Clinton thanks God it is.

[bemildred]

4. Roberts is a shallow fool.

He makes Slappy look smart,

[indepat]

6. A shallow fool, nothing if not a tool?

:P

[bemildred]

10. Now, now, don't get all poetic on me.

:hi:

[olegramps]

5. I will lay odds that Chief Justice Roberts is a member of Opus Dei.

Opus Dei is a secret organization of Catholic Fascists that originated in Spain to support the Fascist dictator Franco. They are primarily corporatist and moral police comparable to the nitwit Taliban extremists. One of the major supporters was Pope John Paul II who engaged daily in self flagellation. Nothing more than a pack of sick bastards.

[LibertyLover]

9. I see you that bet and raise you that he is also a member of

The Family, which got its start out on the West Coast in the 1930s by encouraging and engaging in union busting and stroking the egos of the corporate bosses. Abraham Vereide, the man who founded The Family, hated workers with a passion and never met a corporate boss he didn't like, except those few who were interested in paying a living wage and providing other benefits to their workers. The current leadership of The Family continues that love affair with unfettered capitalism and adds to it an equal, if not greater, affection for virtually every dictator and strong man who has come down the pike since the 1930s.

[naaman fletcher]

11. He is a member, that is public knowledge. nt.

[defendandprotect]

14. Didn't know that about John Paul II -- a flaggelation nut?!! Wow . ..

Pope John XXIII had thrown them out -- and liberation theology was encouraged at that

time --

Shortly reversed by the right wing coup within the Vatican -- fanatics!!

[backtomn]

22. You obviously know nothing about Catholicism.....

John 23 made NO SUCH proclamation. He merely commented that their movement opened up "unexpected horizons of apostolate". In fact, Paul 6 praised Opus Dei and John Paul 2 called the Opus Dei leader a "saint of ordinary life" and canonized him (as a saint) in 2002. As far as I know, liberation theology (once it was understood) was never encouraged. It was always about socialist revolution.

The Opus Dei leader was always cited for "correcting the mistaken idea that holiness is reserved to some extraordinary people who are completely different from ordinary sinners: Even if he can be very weak, with many mistakes in his life, a saint is nothing other than to speak with God as a friend speaks with a friend, allowing God to work, the Only One who can really make the world both good and happy."

I am a DUer, but a Catholic......and I am tired of people who know NOTHING about it, but choose to make comment.

Next time......ASK.

[defendandprotect]

29. Well, as a recovering Catholic, I certainly know quite a bit . . .

But that's very disappointing, if true --

My sources for this would be the Humanist, "Conscience" magazine, and Carroll's book --

among others. I'll also check the internet when I next have an opportunity.

I had always understood that John XXIII had thrown Opus Dei out --

Someone threw them out because it took the CIA Pope to bring them back . . . . ????

And as I understand it that Pope also knocked out liberation theology -- which was

once active in the church. Certainly liberation theology did exist in the church in

recent times -- if not absolutely encouraged, then tolerated. That would be also be

through John XXIII's time.

Meanwhile, certainly there was a right wing coup on Vatican II and on the next two

Popes who seem to have been dispensed with -- Popes who evidently would have approved

birth control - i.e., personal conscience which would have kicked Papal "Infallibility"

in the arse.

As I further understand it, Opus Dei got back in because the church needed a "loan" of

at least $1 BILLION to settle the Vatican Bank scandal.

Plenty going on in that Church that needs to be dealt with -- preferably by authorities!!

Italians, of course, have always acknowledged the sexual perversions of the priests/Vatican.

Most countries coerced by RCC to accept Catholicism have known -- only in now are we

finally see the proof it.

Additionally, did you know that a investigation was begun a few months ago into whether

the RCC used taxpayer money given to them for their "faith-based" organizations to pay off

their pedophile lawsuits?

Btw, what do you think of Dan Brown's views on this corrupt male-supremacist church?

Meanwhile, if you recognize the obvious fascism of the RCC, why are you still in it?

[backtomn]

32. Sounds like more conjecture......

You didn't refute anything I mentioned, just listed more information.

A few comments....
1. Dan Brown has always been a man of FICTION and has admitted it clearly, when pressed on his views.
2. Liberation theology has never been supported at the highest levels of the Church. The Church has been supportive of "social justice" issues, but never a supporter of socialism. If you were an observer of the liberation theology of the Central and South America, you would have seen that its biggest supporters were socialist (or Communist) governments. It was really more political than spiritual.
3. If you had any facts that the Church was using taxpayer money for lawsuits, it would be in all the papers.
4. A little tip for you......a "Humanist" magazine is not the best source for information on the Catholic Church. That should have been obvious.
5. Opus Dei was made an official organization of the Church in 1950, pre-John 23......and the bank scandal (if you mean the Ambrosiano scandal) was in the 80's.

I am not certain where you get your "facts", but they seem to come from people who share your anger with the Church. You really do seem to be worked up about it.

I do wonder something.......as a "recovering Catholic", why do you care about any of this??!! It seems rather pathetic.

[defendandprotect]

38. So you're a supporter of the Vatican . . . and "male-supremacist" religion . . .

I disagree with you that Pope John XXIII wasn't a LIBERAL Pope . . .

When I next come by the information I'm referring to as to when Opus Dei was kicked

and who brought them back in, I'll post it for you.

Meanwhile, I think I made it clear . . . I disagree.

#1 -- Alice Walker also writes "fiction" -- !!!

Much of our "history" is white male propaganda -- !!!


Presume what you are saying is that you disagree that "Jesus" stood against the Hebrew

patriarchy?

Maybe even that you're not disturbed by a male-supremacist religion?

No "liberation" nor liberation theology has to be associated with any Communist!

That's in the eye of the beholder. In fact, I was reading the other day that in

1952, Maurice Chevalier was labelled a "threat to US security" because he had signed

a nuclear ban petition! Communism as we knew it was totalitarianism, not socialism.

In fact, Hoover always referred to USSR in that way: "totalitarian Communism"

Coming back to the church . . . liberation theology existed within the church at least

thru the time of Pope John XXII . . . whether there was official approval or not, it was

OFFICIALLY ELIMINATED a few Popes back.

And is "democracy" more political than spiritual? What nonsense!


Re the church and use of taxpayer $$ to settle lawsuits . . .

I didn't say that I was investigating the Church. I said the government is investigating

the church and where the money went! The information was made public --


Here's a tip -- rarely do Catholics themselves know what Vatican II was all about because

the members have often been misinformed about the true meaning of Vatican II as the right

wing coup took over. And because the right wing coup -- and its efforts to REVERSE Vatican II --

have been so consistently strong -- if not evil.


Evidently dates are NOT helping you to understand very much --

Again, Opus Dei WAS in the church - one of the popes threw them out --

A later more recent Pope brought them back in.

The bank scandal and the "loan" of $1 billion was evidently the IMPETUS for inviting them

back in!

I am not certain where you get your "facts", but they seem to come from people who share your anger with the Church. You really do seem to be worked up about it.

As Will and Mary Durant have made clear, Medieval Catholicism was a "moral step backwards" for

humanity. Why wouldn't anyone be completely sickened at the behavior of this church -- it's

Crusading and Inquisitional history -- and its historical sexual perversions, especially in

its long held practice of abusing children, physically and sexually?

The Catholic and Mormon Indian schools which they ran for the government are yet another

example of this widespread abuse of children. From murder, beatings, hangings, etal to sexual

abuse!!

The question is . . . why would anyone support or feign respect for such a church?



I do wonder something.......as a "recovering Catholic", why do you care about any of this??!! It seems rather pathetic.

How naive!! Evidently you have no concept of patriarchy, nor organized patriarchal religion as

its underpinning? No concept of the war on nature involved in "Manifest Destiny" nor

"Man's Dominion Over Nature"? Wow!

Why would anyone care about sexual abuse of children all over the world?

What cave do you live in?

[brendan120678]

17. What's secret about Opus Dei?

:shrug:

Maybe just because I'm Catholic, but I knew about them long before Dan Brown ever wrote The Da Vinci Code, and even before John Case's The Genesis Code.

[backtomn]

23. Thank you

Whether you agree with them or not, they are not new.

[defendandprotect]

30. I, too, remember hearing about them along the way --

certainly not in any Catechism studies nor from any nun --

And when I did hear about them, it was as a mysterious group --

only later did I discover their absolute extremism and fanaticism -- their insanities!

Evidently they do well financially, however . . .

Opus Dei bailed out the Vatican with $1 BILLION dollars for the Vatican Bank scandal.

[Jefferson23]

7. The majestic petulance of John Roberts :

By Glenn Greenwald
The petulance and sense of self-importance on display here is quite something to behold:


U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Obama's State of the Union address was "very troubling" . . . . Obama chided the court, with the justices seated before him in their black robes, for its decision on a campaign finance case. . . . Responding to a University of Alabama law student's question, Roberts said anyone was free to criticize the court, and some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.

"So I have no problems with that," he said. "On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.

"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."


It's not actually a unique event of oppression or suffering to have to sit and listen to a speech where someone criticizes you and you can't respond that very moment (but are able, as Roberts just proved, to respond freely afterward). Even in the State of the Union Address, it's completely customary for the President to criticize the Congress or the opposition party right to their faces, while members of his party stand and cheer vocally, and -- as the reaction to Joe Wilson's outburst demonstrated -- "decorum" dictates that the targets of the criticism sit silently and not respond until later, once the speech is done. That's how speeches work. Only Supreme Court Justices would depict their being subjected to such a mundane process as an act of grave unfairness (and, of course, Roberts' comrade, Sam Alito, could not even bring himself to abide by that decorum).


remainder in full: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/03/10/roberts

[defendandprotect]

18. As the right wing fanatical presence comes much more into the open . . .

I think we get a much better look at just how aggressive they are determined to be!

Roberts and Alito are even scarier than Scalia . . . who's religously nutty enough!

[wordpix]

19. note the ass is not defending his vote---he's chastising O as messenger

:puke:

[awnobles]

8. Funny How The Intellectally Challenged

Are completely , positively sure they are the smartest and always right. It's easy to think that when you are a complete tool for an organisation with an agenda, feeding you that ideology. Thats the personallity type we have on the Supreme Court representing the right. They CAN'T think as individuals.

[Zoeisright]

12. So you think you're God, huh Roberts?

You are not above criticism, you piece of shit. If you actually did your job and interpreted the Constitution instead of CREATING LAW you wouldn't be criticized so much.

God, that dipshit is an asshole.

[librechik]

13. WTF was Roberts doing criticizing the president?

It's Obama's JOB to criticize his administration. It is not Roberts' job to criticize the CEC. In public.

[wordpix]

15. Hooray for Gibbs, great retort

[prolesunited]

20. I found it very troubling

when he screwed up Obama's swearing in ceremony. A moment that should have been replayed over and over for generations was screwed up and they had to have a do-over.

[nyy1998]

21. Roberts made a big mistake

I can't remember in history the Supreme Court winning a political battle with the President. Just look at what Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt did to scare the court.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moosepoop]

27. I think Roberts was wrong

and it was Justice Alito that mouthed the words "not true."

[midnight]

24. To bad Obama can't use that signing statement to make this ruling go away.

[heli]

26. Roberts is a shameless corporate whore and an incorrigible liar

[Uncle Joe]

31. What's troubling is that Roberts overreached and trashed from thirty to over a hundred years

of precedence for no good reason.

The case called for a much narrower decision but he trashed it all, and this coming after he swore to the Senate, his respect for precedence, so I believe he should be impeached for Contempt of Congress, if not perjury.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/13/AR2005091300693.html

SPECTER: Thank you, Senator Warner.

Thank you, Senator Lugar.

Thank you, Senator Bayh.

Judge Roberts, if you'd now resume your position at center stage.

Judge Roberts, if you would now stand, please. The protocol calls for your swearing in at this point. We have 23 photographers -- well, five more waiting. We may revise our procedures to swear you in at the start of the proceeding, if you should come back.

If you would raise your right hand, and they've asked me to do this slowly, because this is their one photo op.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give before this Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

ROBERTS: I do.

SPECTER: Thank you. And you may be seated.

<snip>

ROBERTS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Leahy, and members of the committee.

<snip>

My personal appreciation that I owe a great debt to others reinforces my view that a certain humility should characterize the judicial role.

Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them.

The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules.

But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.

Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent, shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/13/AR2005091300876.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/09/14/LI2005091402149.html

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[Democat]

35. Roberts is a crook and he should be impeached.

Americans agree with Obama on this issue, not Roberts.

Roberts lied during his nomination and he should be impeached.

[LeftHander]

37. Dems didn't block that nomination....

I knew we would regret it...