Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts address students at the University of Alabama Law School in Tuscaloosa, Ala., March 9, 2010.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s remarks Tuesday protested the timing of President Obama’s State of the Union disapproval of the court’s decision in a major campaign finance case. It has begun Round Two in what appears to be a growing inclination from the White House and Democrats in Congress to criticize the court’s decisions.

The White House fired back Tuesday night with a statement that did not address the substance of Roberts’s comments but with another broadside at the court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. Press secretary Robert Gibbs accused the court of opening “the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections — drowning out the voices of average Americans.”

The court ruled 5 to 4 in January that corporations and unions had a First Amendment right to use their general treasuries and profits to spend freely on political ads for and against specific candidates.

Roberts’s comments came Tuesday in a question-and-answer session with law students at the University of Alabama. He turned down a chance to address criticism of the decision, saying “I’ll have to let my opinion on that speak for itself.”

But later he was asked whether it was proper to use the State of the Union address to “chide” the court for its decision.

“First of all, anybody can criticize the Supreme Court without any qualm,” he said, adding that “some people, I think, have an obligation to criticize what we do, given their office, if they think we’ve done something wrong.”

He continued: “So I have no problems with that. On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum. 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 the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”

Six members of the court — coincidentally, divided equally between those who had supported the decision and those who dissented — were in attendance. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was not quite so expressionless; he shook his head and mouthed “not true” as the president criticized the decision.

That set off the first round of a public debate about whether Obama was wrong in his criticism, or whether Alito violated judicial custom by reacting.

Roberts made it sound as if the problem might be solved by justices simply choosing not to attend.

“To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I’m not sure why we’re there,” said the chief justice, who has attended the event since he joined the court in 2005.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have said they see no reason why justices should be there, and Justice John Paul Stevens has been outspoken about the need of the court to maintain its independence from the political branches.

The court’s decision in Citizens United has proved to be unpopular with the public, according to polling. And Democrats have tried to turn the ruling to their advantage, issuing dire appeals to their contributors that the party’s candidates are about to be buried by special interest contributions.

The quick response by the White House to Roberts’s comments was striking.

“The president has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government,” Gibbs said in the statement. “That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response.”

The criticism of the court continues on other platforms as well. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) opened a hearing on the decision Wednesday with language as strong as Obama’s.

“The Citizens United decision turns the idea of government of, by and for the people on its head,” Leahy said in prepared remarks. “It creates new rights for Wall Street at the expense of the people on Main Street. It threatens to allow unprecedented influence from foreign corporations into our elections. Americans concerned about fair elections have rightfully recoiled.”

This entry was posted on March 10, 2010 at 2:36 pm and is filed under News, Political News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.