Last night, during the State of the Union Address, Justice Alito uttered "not true" after President Obama criticized a recent Supreme Court decision by asserting that it will allow foreign companies to now contribute to U.S. campaigns (it's not true). Democratic congressman stood and wildly applauded in an angry, partisan display of disrespect.
The president's mildly belligerent comment was mildly unsettling, but Justice Alito's comment was not out of line by any measure. Comparisons to Rep. Joe Wilson's "you lie" shout-out during another Obama speech before Congress last year are not appropriate. Wilson heckled Obama; Alito didn't. Wilson accused Obama of lying; Alito didn't.
Anyway, I have two questions. First, why is it perfectly OK for Joe Biden to grin and nod his head in affirmance of Obama's every assertion, knowing full well that his hair plugs were beaming coast-to-coast on national television, but it's not OK for a Supreme Court justice to quietly, and instinctively, correct a misstatement of fact? Second, who told Biden when to grin and nod?
While past State of the Union addresses have taken issue with Supreme Court decisions in respectful tones, I can't ever recall a president being so in-their-face, bordering on derisive, in impugning a decision of the high court while the robed wonders were plopped right in front of him. Even if Obama's criticism were factually correct, and it apparently wasn't, this crossed a long-accepted line of decorum. Mind you, I am not exactly sure why the justices bother to attend the annual snooze-fest in the first place, given its intensely political nature. They don't applaud, they make no pretense of looking like they want to be there, and Alito's comment was the first indication in the last hundred years or so that they even pay attention. I predict some, or all, of those justices will boycott the event hereafter, at least until Obama leaves the White House. They should make it a policy to stay away altogether, no matter who is in the White House.
As for the speech itself, my favorite part is the tradition where the president is introduced twice, once by the guy who ostensibly controls the door to the chamber (I can picture him sputtering "Nobody sees the Wizard! Not nobody, not no how!"), and once by the Speaker of the House, whose introduction, and presence, is as necessary as the speech itself.
The Constitution intended for the speech to provide actual information. I doubt that it has ever done that. It is an overly-carefully crafted political statement that resembles a laundry list more than a good speech.
I'd like to hear Chad's take on it as I defer to him on these matters, but for me, the most important thing about last night's speech was the President's treatment of health care. All last year, the administration's centerpiece for righting the economy -- and, indeed, it's principal policy initiative -- was health care reform. For months I've been trying to get someone to explain to me how health care reform would correct the economy (after all, the Democrats are not suggesting we reduce the underlying cost of health care -- you know, hospital bills that charge $25 for an Advil and all that -- just who pays for it: me? Or me through them?). But last night, Obama made a U-turn. His speech was 7,127 words in length, and the president didn't discuss his administration's centerpiece item until some 3,270 words into it. I guess that means it's no longer his centerpiece item -- you know, Scott Brown and all that. Another of the administration's major initiatives, climate change, was mentioned only as an after-thought. I guess that's because it's no longer a major initiative, either.
Don't know how I'm going to be able to wait for next year's speech.
