Thoughts on the State of the Union Address, the Supreme Court, and The President

Today, Justice John Roberts criticized the usefulness of the presence of the Supreme Court at the State of the Union Address, stating “"To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we're there." He joined with Justices Scalia and John Paul Stevens in his dislike of the political theatre and partisan aspects of the event. His point revolves around the fact that the Justices are not allowed to show favor towards any party, or applause line, even though they clearly do have deep rooted opinions on just about everything said in the speech. This tradition, though it may seem trivial, has kept the Supreme Court above partisan pettiness, and many believe this makes the Justices look good in light of the silly season of politics we are in.

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant corporations the same rights as individual citizens with regards to campaign finance has troubled many in this country mainly because of the floodgates that could open if foreign companies are allowed to contribute to elections in the United States. Though I agree that the President should not pick on the Supreme Court for political points, maybe it was important that the American people, who are mostly not aware of every decision of the Court, to hear about something of this magnitude. The response of the partisans in the room was predictable, and Justice Roberts should have known that such a decision by the Court was likely to be mentioned in the speech. As an equal of the President and Congress, the Supreme Court knows it has enormous power, and that power may be questioned from time to time in our system of checks and balances.

It is good that Justice Roberts was welcoming to the incoming President, and personally I imagine that President Obama has a great deal of respect for the Justice, but in the end, the President has a duty to call out decisions he believes are not in the best interest of the country as a whole. Every now and then it will be necessary to use the national stage of the State of the Union to prove a point.

As I write this article, the House has already begun to numb down the impact the Supreme Court ruling in question, and I’m confident that our system will make sure our elections are not put into the hands of foreign interests. But what is to be made of the modern day politics of the highest courts in our country? Can we keep special interests and lobbyists from taking over the court in the future?

In the interest of the preservation of tradition, the Justices should either skip the event, or remain neutral while there, reassuring Americans that the Supreme Court is above the partisan political noise. To me, that is a comforting feeling.