Adam Liptak does great work covering the Supreme Court for The New York Times, and his piece today about Barack Obama’s very public criticism of the Citizens United decision is worth a read. But I want to provide a little bit of context for this paragraph:
Presidents have mentioned the Supreme Court only rarely in State of the Union addresses, usually to make a general point or to note the nominations or retirements of individual justices.
For post-World War II presidents, that is true. But as Jack Balkin noted yesterday at the legal blog Balkinization, in his 1937 address Franklin D. Roosevelt went far beyond criticizing a particular decision—he faulted the Court’s entire framework of constitutional interpretation, and singled it out as an obstacle to political progress. This passage comes at the conclusion:
The United States of America, within itself, must continue the task of making democracy succeed.
In that task the Legislative branch of our Government will, I am confident, continue to meet the demands of democracy whether they relate to the curbing of abuses, the extension of help to those who need help, or the better balancing of our interdependent economies.
So, too, the Executive branch of the Government must move forward in this task, and, at the same time, provide better management for administrative action of all kinds.
The Judicial branch also is asked by the people to do its part in making democracy successful. We do not ask the Courts to call non-existent powers into being, but we have a right to expect that conceded powers or those legitimately implied shall be made effective instruments for the common good.
The process of our democracy must not be imperiled by the denial of essential powers of free government.
That sounds not too different, actually, than what some of our current president’s impatient liberal supporters were hoping he would say about the Senate, which has become an obstacle to his agenda in much the same way the Court was to Roosevelt’s. So when they say Obama’s no FDR…
Possible differences between FDR, 1937, and Obama, 2009.
1936 Election, Roosevelt - 60.8% of the vote
2008 Election, Obama - 52.9%
The Democrats after 1936 had 336 House seats or so, and 75 Senate seats. The Democrats after 2008 have 256 House seats and 59 Senate seats. FDR was riding four years of unparalleled voter support. Obama's voter support has melted very quickly in one year. Devious though he was, FDR could reasonably argue that the Supreme Court was unreasonably balking the will of the final arbiter of our politics, the voters. Obama can't possibly claim that with a straight face.
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 29 Jan 2010 at 04:56 PM
Obama was actually wrong. What a dunce. (Then again, he's a poster child of conventional "wisdom," like nearly all politicians and MSM.)
But on a deeper, more serious level, let's consider the role of the Supreme Court in general. Here are some points all journalists would do well to consider when reporting on civic affairs:
Is it not tyrannical, that the federal government is considered the final arbiter on whether the federal government has acted lawfully?
The Founders included the Ninth and Tenth Amendments: to reaffirm that the ultimate power shall be in the hands of the people and the states. Nullification and secession are vital if the people and the several states are to keep the Leviathan State in check. The 17th Amendment, too, is unconstitutional and anti-Republican, and should have never been passed: senators are no longer accountable to the people, through their state legislatures, but rather the special interest that fill their (re-)election coffers.
When was the last time any MSM outlet included discussions on any of these root-striking points — or simply quoted the Constitution once in a while — in their coverage of federal affairs? The 1800s? Seriously though.
Yet, the MSM powers-that-be still wonder, "Why are we losing out to blogs, etc., lately?" Gee. You don't think it could be that the people don't like being spun into servitude, do ya?
Just sayin'...
#2 Posted by Dan Alba, CJR on Sun 31 Jan 2010 at 08:59 AM
BTW: FDR was worse than Obama in terms of disdain for the Supreme Court. Let's not forget his ludicrous court-packing plan, an astonishing caesar-like reaction to some of his New Deal initiatives' being ruled unconstitutional.
Of course, FDR was eventually able to pack the Court. Just look at the rulings in Currin v Wallace (1939) and Wickard v Filburn (1942), e.g., wherein his wet dreams of "implied powers," "essential powers of government," and "meeting the demands of democracy" (in all: imperial presidency?) came true.
Let's also not forget when FDR's FCC took away the operating license of a Catholic radio station that criticized his court-packing plan — or the draconian FBI investigations of other private Americans who dared to exercise their 1st Amendment rights in opposition to his many other unconstitutional plans.
(Don't get me started on Wilson, Lincoln, Reagan, Bush, et al.)
#3 Posted by Dan Alba, CJR on Sun 31 Jan 2010 at 09:41 AM