The Supremes and Joint Chiefs should not attend the State of the Union.

[Captain Hilts]

I've always thought that was strange.

Now, with some Supremes choosing to opt-out, it makes attending - or not attending - inherently subject to political speculation. NOT GOOD.

Perhaps just the Chief Justice and Chief of JCS and no others should attend.

[Jennicut]

1. They don't really participate in all the standing up and clapping

anyway. They are supposed to be objective which makes Alito's reaction all the more stupid on his part. I agree, keep them home.

[Captain Hilts]

3. The fact that about half the Supremes were there is weird. They all show or none show.

Otherwise, it becomes a political gesture, and I'd prefer they stay home.

I've always thought it was weird.

And the military isn't supposed to be political either. I don't want to see them there.

[CK_John]

9. Several are kept out on purpose to form a new court in case of disaster.

Also the court is a seperate branch and it does what it wishes.

[Yupster]

5. Better to stay home

You can't have three co-equal branches of government where one branch can stand above the other branch on a podium and tell them why they're wrong, and they are not allowed to even nod their disapproval. That doesn't sound like separation of powers of co-equal branches. It sounds like one branch calling in another branch to be publicly told off, and that looks bad for what our system is supposed to be.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. Do you also disagree with the President telling off Congress for not

doing its job?

[Yupster]

18. Partly

Not that he can tell them off, but that they can't say they don't agree but to a lesser extent than the Supremes because the congresscritters can grumble, stand or not stand based on their feelings.

The Supremes are supposed to not react, and therefore it doesn't seem right to be able to berate them when they can't react back. It seems like basic unfairness and certainly impolite.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. Huh? If they are, in your words, supposed to not react, then it is incumbent

on the president to not give them anything to react to? So the ideal SOTU is mealy mouthed platitudes that are not supposed to upset anybody.

WTF?

You clearly have NO conception of the idea of judicial neutrality.

[Sherman A1]

2. I disagree

The President is reporting on the State of The Union as mandated by the Constitution. Some of it is political, some is ceremony, some really important, some a bit less so, but it is a mandated requirement and I think that The Court should attend along with the JCS. (granted there was no JCS when the Constitution was written). It's a part of our democratic process and I think it's an important one. I watch it every year (tended to tune out *, but watched the ceremony).

I think the whole nod thing is much ado about nothing.

[Captain Hilts]

4. I felt this way before the nod. It's a report to Congress that was usually mailed. The JCS

have no business being there. The Sec. of Defense is. He's political, they are not.

[Sherman A1]

6. Well, we will disagree on this most likely

had the President not mentioned the court ruling (and I am glad he did) chances are no nod would have occurred. I really think the Justice's reaction was kinda spontaneous (and while I am hardly a fan of his) I will give him the benefit of the doubt. He and his group were chastised from the podium, by the President of the United States during a major event that is broadcast around the world. I might be a little miffed and quietly respond myself in that case.

I still think it's much ado about nothing.

The ruling is a huge issue, the nod isn't in my view.

[Captain Hilts]

7. I think the Alito thing also is much ado about nothing. But the attendance, or lack there of...

IS a big issue with me. Is it a coincidence that the two most conservative justices were not there? Their act of not attending has a clear, political message that is inappropriate for the SOTU speech.

Anyone know how many GWB SOTU's Thomas and Scalia missed?

[onenote]

10. you can take off your tinfoil

Scalia has never attended a SOTU address. Breyer almost never misses one. Here is a list of who has attended in recent years:

BUSH PRESIDENCY:
2008: Roberts, Breyer, Alito, Kennedy
2007: Roberts, Breyer, Alito, Kennedy
2006: Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Alito
2005: Stevens, Breyer
2004: Breyer
2003: Breyer
2002: Kennedy, Breyer
2001: Breyer

CLINTON PRESIDENCY:
2000: None (due to illnesses and travel conflicts)
1999: O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsberg, Breyer
1998: Rehnquist, O'Connor, Souter, Thomas, Breyer
1997: Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsberg, Breyer, White (retired)
1996: Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsberg, Breyer
1995: Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Ginsberg, Breyer, Blackmun (retired)

[Ter]

21. You say Scalia has never attended a SOTU

And then you list him as attending in 1995 and 1997. Which is it?

[onenote]

8. the SOTU doesn't even have to be delivered in person

So, as a constitutional matter, attendance is utterly irrelevant. Indeed, while Washington gave his report to Congress in person, Jefferson abandoned that practice. It wasn't revived until Wilson and even after Wilson there have been circumstances in which the "State of the Union" (a term that didn't really become commonplace until FDR) was not delivered in person -- Truman and Carter each had one year in which they reported in writing rather than in person.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. If you watch every year you must have noticed, that every other time

the president has criticized court decisions in the speech (and this is hardly the first time) NONE of the justices showed any response.

The neutrality of the court is at stake. When they are wearing those robes they are not 'people' they are The Supreme Court.

Alito's reaction is unprecedented. I suppose that doesn't bother him, as he doesn't give a crap about precedent.

[onenote]

15. direct criticism of a specific recent case is indeed unusual

While not 'the first time' it isn't as common an occurence as you suggest. The closest that I have been able to find is FDR's 1937 SOTU speech in which he criticized the "Courts" and "JUdiciary" for impeding the efforts of the Executive and Legislative branches to address the Great Depression. If there are more recent examples of direct criticism of a recent ruling (or rulings), I'd be interested in seeing them.

Relevant excerpts from FDR's 1937 SOTU

During the past year there has been a growing belief that there is little fault to be found with the Constitution of the United States as it stands today. The vital need is not an alteration of our fundamental law, but an increasingly enlightened view with reference to it. Difficulties have grown out of its interpretation; but rightly considered, it can be used as an instrument of progress, and not as a device for prevention of action.

It is worth our while to read and reread the preamble of the Constitution, and Article I thereof which confers the legislative powers upon the Congress of the United States. It is also worth our while to read again the debates in the Constitutional Convention of one hundred and fifty years ago. From such reading, I obtain the very definite thought that the members of that Convention were fully aware that civilization would raise problems for the proposed new Federal Government, which they themselves could not even surmise; and that it was their definite intent and expectation that a liberal interpretation in the years to come would give to the Congress the same relative powers over new national problems as they themselves gave to the Congress over the national problems of their day.

In presenting to the Convention the first basic draft of the Constitution, Edmund Randolph explained that it was the purpose "to insert essential principles only, lest the operation of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable which ought to be accommodated to times and events."

With a better understanding of our purposes, and a more intelligent recognition of our needs as a Nation, it is not to be assumed that there will be prolonged failure to bring legislative and judicial action into closer harmony. Means must be found to adapt our legal forms and our judicial interpretation to the actual present national needs of the largest progressive democracy in the modern world.


SNIP
The United States of America, within itself, must continue the task of making democracy succeed. In that task the Legislative branch of our Government will, I am confident, continue to meet the demands of democracy whether they relate to the curbing of abuses, the extension of help to those who need help, or the better balancing of our interdependent economies.

So, too, the Executive branch of the Government must move forward in this task, and, at the same time, provide better management for administrative action of all kinds.

The Judicial branch also is asked by the people to do its part in making democracy successful. We do not ask the Courts to call non-existent powers into being, but we have a right to expect that conceded powers or those legitimately implied shall be made effective instruments for the common good.

The process of our democracy must not be imperiled by the denial of essential powers of free government.

[Bucky]

11. Strongly disagree. It's not just political. He's speaking as leader of the whole country.

These are important people. And stripping the emperor's new clothes off Alito in public really was priceless. It's not like SCOTUS has ever been an apolitical branch of the government.

Besides, being such a republic full of novelties, it's nice to have the occasional group ritual to reaffirm the unity and patriotism that's supposed to underly all that kvetching.

[salguine]

14. I don't know why Diana Ross would attend anyway.

[boppers]

19. *snarffle*

Well played.

[timeforpeace]

16. They were invited, right? And got creamed. They may stay away next time.

[BlueIdaho]

17. They should attend, just put them in the nose bleed section.