IMO the Supreme Court Justices should not be there.

[LiberalFighter]

There is nothing in the Constitution that mentions them when providing the SOTU.


Article II Section III
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Or the JCS. I COMPLETELY AGREE. nt

[apocalypsehow]

2. There is nothing in the Constitution that mentions the First Lady or reporters be present, either.

It's a long-standing tradition that the members of the USSC attend the SOTU regardless of the party in power, and your argument that they shouldn't is really, really, really lame.

[Thothmes]

5. Or the Joint Chiefs of Staff

[Rhiannon12866]

3. Well, they don't look happy about it, either...

Especially Sotomayor... She's stuck sitting next to Alito... :evilfrown:

[marshall]

8. Bipartisanship is alive and well in the Supreme Court!

It was strange but on the other hand encouraging to see Sotomayor sitting next to Alito.

[tigereye]

11. they all get along pretty well, despite their legal or other differences...

[marshall]

14. Apparently that's the way it used to be in Congress

Back in the sixties and seventies. Times have changed.

[tigereye]

15. the Senate always got along better than the House folks

but even that is worse, I think. It blows me away that few or no Reps have voted for any Dem legislation lately - they just don't seem to care.


At least we don't have to look at Santorum anymore! :woohoo:

[marshall]

16. Obama has certainly called out both sides to "tear down that wall"

Hopefully it will fall on some willing ears.

[tigereye]

19. I wish the Reps would display just a bit of common sense, rather than being

cranky obstructionists playing "gotcha." I despise their smugness and lack of tolerance.

[DefenseLawyer]

20. I'm not sure how I could "get along" with Scalia after Bush v. Gore

It is one thing to have a differing judicial philosophy, it is quite another to be willing to abandon any pretense of legal analysis to attain a purely political result. It made a mockery of our entire legal system. I don't think I could be cordial about that.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

4. They don't have to be they are invited.

[Bucky]

6. But that's how it's always been. It's for making it an Event that confirms HE is the president

Anyway, they made for useful props. I like a little pomp and circumstance on occasion. I'm usually a nag warning against the imperial presidency, which I think is mostly a result of our legislative branch doing a historically inadequate job over the past 40 years, but the pomp of these big rituals is helpful in reminding Congressfolks what they're really there to do (which is not to just piss all over the boss's shoes when they're in the minority).

[SmileyRose]

7. I like it.

Tells the citizens who actually support the Putin's of the world that despite our petty differences and policy battles our judicial system and our military are firmly behind both this president and our system of government. Yes, it's all show and yes, of course Gates could be plotting the military overthrow the government. But for one moment, once a year, everyone gets in one big room. In the TV age, IMHO this is a powerful statement to blast around the planet.

[blondeatlast]

9. Considering probably 95% of the population doesn't even know SCOTUS exists,

I think it's good that they attend. Maybe last night will show the great unwashed what an impact SCOTUS has on our lives.

[tigereye]

10. it's traditional - it's a sign of all the branches and sections of the govt.

[ElmoBlatz]

12. What does it matter?

They could watch it on TV, or be there in person. Does it really make a difference?

There's also nothing in the constitution about a state of the union SPEECH. In times past it was often just a letter from the President.

[dem629]

13. In that case, there should never be a woman president.

The Constitution says "he."

And you want to just go by what it says, right?

[Strawman]

17. There's nothing in the Constitution that says it has to be a speech either

But that is the modern custom since Wilson.

The SCOTUS is political. Most of them are partisans, especially the Republican appointees of Reagan and George W. Bush. The mask fell last night and that's a good thing imo.

[Dappleganger]

18. They should be forced to choke on their own medicine.

Their decisions have consequences and they need to be forced to face them.