Justices Alito, Scalia, Thomas to skip State of Union address

Source: USA Today

Chief Justice John Roberts will lead a six-justice contingent tonight at the State of the Union speech, but three conservative members of the high court will not be attending, a court spokeswoman confirms.

They are Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

All members of the court were in attendance last year. Alito, however, mouthed the words "not true" in response to President Obama's criticism of the court's ruling on campaign contributions.

Alito will be attending a judicial conference in Hawaii tonight.

Read more: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/01/justices-alito-scalia-thomas-to-skip-state-of-union-address/1

and have lost all respect and love for their country. They are embarrassments to our fine system.
I hope Obama points out their absence as an example of what is wrong.

Scalia and Thomas never attend. That also was the case for Stevens and Souter. Its a personal decision and not a partisan one. I had no problem when Ginsburg skipped the SOTU for eight straight years and I have no problem with the decision of any other justice in terms of their attending or not attending.

Ginsberg, Stevens and Souter yes, unless you can post where they ever made direct statements as the clowns listed below, we disagree.
These guys couldn't be more partisan if they tried.


SNIP* And Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has apparently concluded that his distaste for last year’s address, which

he called a “political pep rally,” was not reason enough to stay away. He may have concluded that the court’s reputation as an avowedly apolitical institution would be harmed should only the court’s more liberal justices attend.

“I’m not sure why we are there,” Chief Justice Roberts said of the address in March in remarks at a law school.

“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 to the requirements of protocol, has to sit there expressionless, I think, is very troubling,” he added.

Justice Alito made similar observations in remarks at the Manhattan Institute in October. “I doubt that I will be there in January,” he said. It was very awkward, he explained, “to sit there like the proverbial potted plant.”

True to his word, Justice Alito has left town. He is scheduled to give a talk in Hawaii on Wednesday as part of a law school’s “jurist in residence” program. His topic: “Top Things You May Not Know About the U.S. Supreme Court.”

SNIP*Justice Antonin Scalia, who did not attend last year, told the Federalist Society in November that the address had become a “juvenile spectacle.”

in full: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/politics/26justices.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

the other clowns...that is the significant difference.

Do you honestly believe that only one half of the polity utters them?

I'm with onenote on this. Besides, it's a relief not to see the 3 stooges on TV during the speech.

without obnoxious partisan commentary is from one side and not the conservatives side...the record is clear on that.

On Edit: Well, according to the USAToday article, which may or may not be true.

Consistent with their practice over most of the past two decades.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0130/Obama-vs.-Alito-Political-dust-up-during-State-of-the-Union

:shrug:

Thanks for catching that for me.

Very partisan of them. They aren't even trying not.

In the courts, in Congress and now the SCOTUS. And these were the alpha sections of civil society that were supposed to bring sense, justice and order to human affairs.

I am sick of government officials acting worse than junior high kids. The media needs to call them out on it too. Oops, my bad - they are just as bad.

Children aren't evil. These SC justices repeatedly violate their oaths for personal and party gain. They are traitors and should be impeached. There is no doubt they are merely politicians in robes who don't have to worry about being unelected by the people.

that they are not fair judges. the right whine about judicial activists because anyone doesn't rule the way they want, but if there were a definition for it, i think these clowns would have to be pictured next to it! their bias is quite blatant isn't it??

Stevens and Souter stayed away for much of their time on the bench. Ginsburg skipped eight in a row. Frankly, I would prefer if the members of the court did not attend.

however, they can regularly be found at all kinds of elite parties, get-together's

and political gatherings!

And remember Scalia's "duck hunting" with Cheney around the time of the case against

Cheney to disclose his Energy/OIL meetings in the White House?

We should hold Scalia upside down until all those ducks come flying out of his mouth!!

Ruth Ginsburg can make it but these ass hats can't?

or, for that matter, during the chimpy years when Scalia didn't attend? ALso a slap in the face?

Maybe its just because the SOTU has become political theater and some of the justices have chosen to stay away. That's what Justice Stevens did. He virtually never attended because he felt it had become a political event. And, of course, he is right. It started with the repubs treating reagan's SOTUs as if they were football games. It was sweet when we got to do the same thing when Clinton was president, but let's not pretend that its something other than what it has become.

Their escape vehicle:

to the Teabaggers???? sarcasm

I'd like to hear a spirited rebuttal of whatever the Republicans say by someone with some guts, like Grayson or Sanders.

Stevens from 1995 to 2010 (except 2005).

Supreme Court Justice attendance at SOTU:

OBAMA PRESIDENCY:
2010: Roberts, Breyer, Alito, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor
2009: Roberts, Breyer, Alito, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Thomas

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, Ginsburg, Breyer
1998: Rehnquist, O'Connor, Souter, Thomas, Breyer
1997: Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, White (retired)
1996: Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer
1995: Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, Blackmun (retired


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/24/obama-speech-scotus-in-the-house/

Now if they would just disappear entirely.

We don't need those fuckers there anyway.

Who will miss them? :shrug:

--imm

move they have made as a group in some time.

And go fuck yourselves too btw.

These are immature ones. Not the kind we want in their positions of supreme decision making.

Thomas skipped every one of chimpy's SOTUs (although he did attend several of Clinton's). I don't think Scalia attended a SOTU since 1997. STevens and Souter used to skip them as well. And Ginsburg missed all of Chimpy's

This covers 1995 through 2008.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/24/obama-speech-scotus-in-the-house/

Then when you provide one, you never hear from them again. Happens every time.

The point is if people list a bunch of data and facts from somewhere they can at least list the link or source they got it from. Otherwise one assumes these "facts" came from their rears.

I actually wanted to legitimately know the history of attending SC justices because it seems pretty outrageous what the right wing of the SC is doing. If the fore-mentioned attendance is accurate then I will simply say "meh" and move on, not hate'n on the Corpo Fascist's for their pouty party.

Like you, I often ask for a link just so I can get more information.

was happy to go back and provide it.

:nopity:

posers to disgrace the bench.

THIS SCOTUS MEMBER
AWOL

:rofl:

as usual.

"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 to the requirements of protocol, has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling" - John Roberts

He's right I dont care if its Obama and it was the conservatives that were being humiliated or not. What Obama did was wrong. If this was done to liberal justices by a Republican president the people defending this would be saying he exact opposite.

And not only was it a breach of protocol, but if there was any chance that Kennedy would retire for Obama that probably ended it, so it was especially dumb considering that.

(except that I know the ACLU were on Roberts side), but I knwo in several others I have agreed with him. He was especially good in defending free speech in the animal cruelty video case. And of course he's right about this, and I have even more respect for him for saying what Obama did was wrong but going to the State of the Union anyhow.

by bringing up the case in such a political setting when the court is suppose to be apolitical and nonpartisan. The tone he used invited it too; he was clearly trying to score political points.

It doesnt matter what you think of the decision, that would go for Citizens United or Roe v Wade. It was... disrespectful to the court, which is a coequal branch of government, to take advantage of that setting to castigate and humiliate them when they are there quietly listening to the presidents speech neither booing or clapping (like everyone else) but trying to remain neutral.

Its like attacking someone when theyre gagged and their hands are tied and they cant respond. There are other places to question the decisions of the court, that isnt it.

You really dont have to post links. If I want to know more about CU Ill use Google or see what the ACLU said. Thx.

It's been all over the net. Have a nice week.

but two wrongs don't make a right.

and you may want to read this: http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/25/scalia-tentherism/ Sounds like Scalia didn't tell the Tea Party what they wanted to hear.

Well then maybe he shouldn't be a Supreme if he doesn't like the job requirements.

What's "troubling" about supposedly nonpartisan members of Government acting nonpartisan?

For the better part of their tenure, Stevens and Souter almost always skipped the event. Ginsburg missed eight years in a row. Breyer attends every one. Kennedy has skipped about half of them since 1995. Its a personal call. I think a good case can be made for staying away from what, unfortunately, devolved into partisan bit of theater starting in the Reagan years.

I didn't say anything about that. I'm talking about being all upset because they had to just sit there while others didn't have to just sit there.... if they attend.

Learn to read.

supposed to be impartial and also not supposed to pre-judge any issue that may come before them.

"And not only was it a breach of protocol, but if there was any chance that Kennedy would retire for Obama that probably ended it, so it was especially dumb considering that."

Made up from whole cloth.

The SOTU is a partisan political event and the SC should just stay away from it.

...this is simply outlandish and points to the sorry
state of affairs in America today.

The GOBPers, RushThugs and T.HaterBaggers have made their
agenda very, very clear. They ARE simply, Terrorists.

It is to destroy America and bring down all average Americans with it.

And by the way, plenty of justices, both conservative and liberal, have chosen not to attend the SOTU over the years.

nt

Not that anyone thought any of those three had any class. But this is disrespectful to the country, the Founding Fathers, and the Constitution as well.

they can go and speak to tea baggers and create shit from thin air that make corporations into "persons" - they should be impeached and dethroned post haste.

Nowhere is there evidence that anyone is trying to fight back. Americans are cooperating with their own demise.

our government was totally corrupted long ago --

and the criminals are flocking in to every part of government --

If Democrats have been resisting, hard to tell!!

a way to overcome this criminality. Personally, I have no clear idea how that could be done.
But, we are at a desperate point now. We are going to have to start taking some chances on low odds tactics. (I don't mean physical sabotage.)

And presume that's why we're all here to understand the scope of the problems --

the scope of the corruption -- and talk about a Plan B?

Think about the unemployment which we're suffering now -- 20% when long term u/e

are counted!! Well, in Michigan, Michael Moore makes clear it's been like that

for decades -- and even more now. Obviously, it's families bankrupting themselves

to try to support other family members without jobs.

I don't know that has completely hit all of us yet -- ?

There are many ways to unite -- evidently during the Depression they organized the

unemployed and then got them together with the employed to act together. Needless

to say, no one's job is secure these days and workers understand that!

And many ways to act together -- we're dealing with corporatism and that involves products.

We also have cars and can take them off the road for 15/20 minute sat a time at a signal.

We can turn off lights at night for an hour or two as a signal.

Many of those kinds of actions --

If you want to come out into the street, the strike is the best way --

Having workers walk out at 4:30 in the afternoon and meeting unemployed demonstrators.

Leaving at 11:30 am and metting for a two hour strike.

Refusing to buy gas on a given day -- whatever -- many ideas on this.

This is a distraction to make us forget Thomas' clear conflict of interest.

They are making quite a political statement by not attending.

Scalia & Thomas should have been impeached in 2000 when they voted not to count the votes.

Claiming a corporation has the same rights as citizens is insane.

Not only is your argument unsupported by the facts, but it opens a can of worms, since the same argument could be made regarding the attendance records of other more progressive justices.

are certainly partisan..they do not refrain from mocking the event...significant difference.

There are no statements from the others suggesting anything questionable..the conservatives have gone on the record
to the contrary.

a bit. If Scalia, Alito and especially Thomas actually had fewer or no law clerks and had to research the opinions they do (as do lawyers who are sole practitioners), the results might be quite different.

September 2010
WASHINGTON — Each year, 36 young lawyers obtain the most coveted credential in American law: a Supreme Court clerkship. Clerking for a justice is a glittering capstone on a résumé that almost always includes outstanding grades at a top law school, service on a law review and a prestigious clerkship with a federal appeals court judge.


Justice Clarence Thomas apparently has one additional requirement. Without exception, the 84 clerks he has chosen over his two decades on the court all first trained with an appeals court judge appointed by a Republican president.

. . . .

Each justice typically hires four clerks a year. Since Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the court in 2005, Justice Antonin Scalia has not hired any clerks who had worked for a judge appointed by a Democratic president, and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. has hired only two. At the other end of the ideological spectrum, only four of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s clerks on the Roberts court came from judges appointed by Republicans. The early data on President Obama’s two appointees, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, show a similar pattern.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/us/politics/07clerks.html

They're so much nicer in person.

when it turns out the same number are attending this year as attended last year.

especially on Conflicts of interest

(my apologies if my comment offended anyone.) This action is beyond my understanding. I am not prone to cuss words but I find this action generates only crude words from me.

I take this as a willing and nasty affront to the president.

which they did fairly consistently.

This is a bunch of silly poutrage. A good case can be made that the SCOTUS justices ought to stay away from the SOTU, which has become a piece of political theater ever since reagan and the repubs decided to treat it like a football match where cheering their idol became part of the sport.

first, being justices, they should be able to summon up some "judicial temperament" for the time they have to listen to this speech.

OTOH who cares if they show up? The SOTU is an evolved ritual that does nothing but symbolize a Constitution accountability of the executive to the legislature. The only purpose of the speech has always been theater.

--imm

Impeachment is out. Ethics is out. Accountability is out. Can I have a three-man banana peel slip?

The GOP dissed him right after the Nov elections....saying they were busy.

Now these 3 goobers.


SEE THE PATTERN PEOPLE?

Obama is not American....they don't think of him as President....
The constant drumbeat of He's not really the President.

Obama needs to move even further to The Right to win these guys over.

The three most active radical right justices are skipping the speech; Don Young, Alaska's ONLY member of the House of Representatives, is going to go for the first time since 1974. Yep, 1974.

Scalia and Thomas have a long history of skipping the SOTU. Scalia last attended in 1997, Thomas has attended only once or twice in that same period. They weren't alone in skippping it. Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg skipped more often than they attended from the late 1990s on.

It's not a cocktail party, where you might drop in depending on whether you're busy that night.

If showing up is optional then the justices make a political point by attending or by not attending. If it's required, they're neutral, and if they all stay away because it's a political event, they're neutral. When attendance is optional an appearance or non-appearance can't help but send a statement, whether it's one of support or of non-support, and that's not appropriate for the Supreme Court.

lol

Why don't they just start addressing him as President "N" word.
Santorum practically did it last week, and all the rhetorical
words used this past year are so blatantly racist they might as
well just say it.
Obama even mentioned it in his acceptance speech when he said;
"I get it." He was talking about being a black man treading in
the white mans territory.
I don't hate anything but I really dislike bigots. And by them not
attending is like saying he's not worth the time. The big three have
made their feelings known. I'm surprised Roberts is going.

Frankly, this is nothing new and is doesn't score us any points to dwell on it.

If I missed it can you post a link ? I'm trying different wordage and still can't find it.
What year did it occur ?

Thanks

I try to get the facts right but this did get by me. Back surgery pain meds can do that.
I thought it was a formality and hence, did not research before posting.
Thanks again for supplying the link.
Peace
TJ

:nuke:

I would, if I were They!

:puke:

Such are their priorities.

What a country!

Tempest hit it square.

Supposedly, Clinton was impeached for perjury about a personal matter (though it was obvious they were digging for anything at all).

They perjured themselves about how they would perform their duties, in order to get votes to put themselves on the bench.

:evilgrin: