I am sure that everyone has heard about the supreme courts ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case. That will definitely have a large impact on elections. The real thing that caught me off guard about all of this was how the Supreme Court Justice's and Chief Justice John Roberts were angered by President Obama's comments and felt the entire state of the union event was a "pep rally". It also seemed odd how Chief Justice Robert's felt the need for Supreme Court Justice's to be present at these state of the union events was outdated and unneccessary.
It is understandable that Chief Justice Robert's feels disrespected because anyone in his situation would likely feel the same way. However, for him to criticize the President's choice of where he was to address this important case ruling does not make sense. Either way President Obama would have voiced his thoughts on the matter. It would be somewhat cowardly to do it through media outlets. It also would not come across and get the same public reaction if he had spoken to the supreme court justices in private either. It was a state of the union address. The ruling in this case was very important and definitely should have been mentioned.
As far as the Supereme Court Justice's not wanting to be present at the state of the union event's anymore, I think that is a childish move. They work in one of the most cut-throat societies in the world and their job entails making decisions on cases that will affect hundreds of millions of people. They have a right to be upset, but for them to think that they should not have to be subjected to public criticism in public is immature. The more importance a job carries usually translates into more criticism and public scrutiny.
This court ruling will have a large impact on elections, interest groups and political parties. I know that all of the Supreme Court Justice's are intelligent people with years of experience in the field of law. However, I feel that they got this decision wrong. They may have opened up a door to another set of problems. It seems like all this talk and movement towards government regulation may have caused some counter moves, like the ruling in this case, to balance things out. Corporate greed and frugal management are some of the reasons our country is in this mess. Allowing them to spend large amounts on their interest's in the political arena has never seemed like a good idea.
When a ruling is in place for over a hundred years it might be a good thing. It did not damage, disgrace or unfairly treat anyone or anything. It kept big business out of politics. Political campaigns are already at all-time high costs, so why would a ruling be made to allow even more spending and financial aspects to be involved?
Here's the link to the article I read:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124537470
4 comments:
I don't see any need for members of the Supreme Court to be present at events like the State of the Union Address. It is perfectly acceptable for the public to criticize Justices and their decisions, but it is not necessary for them to be there to hear it. Judicators are not politicians in the same sense as legislators and executives. Decisions made by the Supreme Court are meant to be impersonal and dragging a Justice in front of an unhappy public is not going to help them make an objective decision.
the state of the union is a pep rally its one of the only oppurtunties the president has the ear of the entire senate, the court and the public. perhaps justices should remain out of politics because it does a diservice to them to voice their feelings and beliefs in matters that could effect future decsions. i question the courts ability to truly decide cases without inputting their political leanings but ideally they would view the constitution and precedent as being important and decide cases based on legality not personal belief. thats an ideal world. Roberts needs to keep the image of the court apart from politics because it is important to its legitmacy.
The courts may not directly have anything to do with politics, but they are apart of the political system. They overturn and rule on cases that involve laws, rules and regulations passed in Congress and signed by the President. I don't see how they have no involvement at all in your opinions. The Supreme court members being at the State of the Union addresses makes more sense than the VP being at the Senate meetings. This does not happen that often either. It is not as if every State of the Union address involves a Supreme Court bashing session. If you are going to make a monumental decision and not be able to deal with criticism, then maybe you are not a good fit to be in the Supreme Court.
It really is childish of Chief Justice Roberts to feel they do not have to be there. There are alot of bureaucratic methods to our political system that are not liked by others. All the other members of the Supreme Court have been doing this for years and for Roberts to feel they should not have to is selfish. Selfish should never be mentioned in anything involving the Supreme Court. Roberts reminds of the little kid who wants to take his ball and go home because he got made fun of. It's a tough job, don't do it if you can't handle it.
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors handbags
coach purses
roshe run
mizuno shoes
birkenstock sandals
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet clearance
coach outlet store online
michael kors outlet clearance
chenyingying2017411
Post a Comment