Axelrod on POTUS-SCOTUS SOTU Flap
EmailAt least the President didn’t suggest carving Chief Justice Roberts a new spine from a banana. The President’s top adviser told me in my “This Week” interview that that Chief Justice Roberts didn’t really have a point when he said the President’s State of the Union criticism of a court decision was “very troubling”.
Axelrod suggested that Roberts should look to Teddy Roosevelt to see a real dust-up between the Executive and the Court. “You know, if he looks back 100 years, Theodore Roosevelt said of Oliver Wendell Holmes after he made a decision on an antitrust case that he didn't believe in, that Roosevelt thought was a bad decision, he said, I could carve out of a banana a judge with a stronger spine than him. So things have been said about justices by presidents in the past that were far more personal than anything the president said here.”
When asked if Roberts had a point about the setting being inappropriate, Axelrod responded: "I really don't think so."
Watch video HERE:
Read full transcript:
TAPPER: I want to change to a couple of other subjects. First of all, President Obama during his state of the union address criticized the Supreme Court decision, with the Supreme Court sitting there. This week, Chief Justice John Roberts had this to say about how he felt at the time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: 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.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Doesn't Justice Roberts have a point? Not on the substance
of what President Obama was saying about the decision, obviously the
president can say whatever he wants. But doesn't he have a point about the appropriateness of that setting?
AXELROD: You know, I really don't think so, and I think Justice Roberts is a student of history. You know, if he looks back 100 years, Theodore Roosevelt said of Oliver Wendell Holmes after he made a decision on an antitrust case that he didn't believe in, that Roosevelt thought was a bad decision, he said, I could carve out of a banana a judge with a stronger spine than him. So things have been said about justices by presidents in the past that were far more personal than anything the president said here. But thinking about Teddy Roosevelt, I wonder what he would think about a bill that essentially allows for a corporate takeover of our elections, or a court decision. And that's what we're dealing with here. Under the ruling of the Supreme Court, any lobbyist could go into any legislator and say, if you don't vote our way on this bill, we're going to run a million-dollar campaign against you in your district. And that is a threat to our democracy. It's going to further reduce the voice of the American people, and it's something we have to push back vigorously on.
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will 
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
When Mr. Axelrod purported to quote Theodore Roosevelt’s comment about Justice Holmes, he missed the point. Roosevelt did not make the comment during any of his State of the Union messages. That was what Jake Tapper was inquiring about–the setting, not the comment. Either historical error or pure sophistry on Mr. Axelrod’s part.
Posted by: John Klug | March 14, 2010, 11:30 am 11:30 am
It would have ok for the POTUS to make the comment/it would have been better if he commented correctly as the what he stated was incorrect. He as a constitutional lawyer should have known that. The law does not encompass foreign corporations. anyway from a POTUS who raised almost 700 million dollars during his campaign that is the ironic part
Posted by: Karla | March 14, 2010, 11:52 am 11:52 am
Oh well, Axelrod said he there was no problem with the time and place.
I stand corrected. Apparently the POTUS should ‘scold’ members of the SCOTUS (an equal branch of the US Government) when they are trapped and every body movement and facial twist is broadcast all over the US and much of the world.
WRONG! The president’s behavior during the SOTU address against the Supreme Court Justices was boorish and distasteful.
Posted by: malcat | March 14, 2010, 12:55 pm 12:55 pm
The president’s behavior during the SOTU address against the Supreme Court Justices was boorish and distasteful.
__________________________________
In the current atmosphere of ‘gossip opinion’ politics people seem to forget – it’s not their ‘opinion’ that matters. What matters are the rules and regulations that govern the institutions.
The country is based on rule of law, not your gossipy opinion.
Posted by: tierra | March 14, 2010, 1:25 pm 1:25 pm
He as a constitutional lawyer should have known that. The law does not encompass foreign corporations. anyway from a POTUS who raised almost 700 million dollars during his campaign that is the ironic part. okay
Posted by: Ilan Ben Menachem | March 14, 2010, 1:29 pm 1:29 pm
The law does not encompass foreign corporations.
_________________________________
Says who? Source and date please.
Posted by: tierra | March 14, 2010, 2:06 pm 2:06 pm
The Supreme Courts decision is a disaster waiting to happen. And what a time for this nation to have to suffer thru unregulated campaign funds from the corps that already have tremendous influence (and according to some, run the country and our gov’t). HORRIBLE and I think the Pres. was right on and the setting was perfect because everyone could see them getting scolded for a BAD decision.
Posted by: InNE | March 14, 2010, 3:06 pm 3:06 pm
Also, the $700 million Obama raised for his campaign came from little pee-ons like me who donated $25 here and there. That was what made him so problematic for his opponents. He got the least from corps. Lastly, the new law doesn’t OPPOSE foreign fund raising, there lies the bigger problem of buying our “representatives.”
Posted by: InNE | March 14, 2010, 3:12 pm 3:12 pm
Roberts and his ilk are not qualified to serve and should be impeached.
Posted by: Demandside | March 14, 2010, 5:33 pm 5:33 pm
In the current atmosphere of ‘gossip opinion’ politics people seem to forget – it’s not their ‘opinion’ that matters. What matters are the rules and regulations that govern the institutions.
The country is based on rule of law, not your gossipy opinion.
—————–snipped by tierra
————-
My opinion matters as much as yours, which is the same as anyone else for that matter.
Since my ‘opinion’ guides for whom I vote, I would say it matters considerably.
As for ‘rules and regulations’ of the institution, I consider how President Obama behaved towards the SCOTUS Justices during the SOTU address to be NO better than what Wilson did when he insulted the decorum of Congress by yelling ‘you lie’ at the POTUS.
Your problem, tierra, is your total lack of ability to see past the glaze of hero-worship to notice President Obama is just as capable of doing something stupid as anyone else.
Posted by: malcat | March 14, 2010, 6:47 pm 6:47 pm
The President should not have called out the Supreme Court Justices for their decision in front of the world. That would be like your boss gathering all your fellow employees around and chewing your ### out in front of them. It is just not appropriate even if you did wrong.
Posted by: d | March 14, 2010, 7:21 pm 7:21 pm
Not very good spin, Joe. TR spoke about judges in private, not in PUBLIC settings before the entire country. When Tom DeLay criticized a lesser judge’s opinion, liberals were outraged! An independent judiciary was a foundation of the nation, we were told! They did a Law & Order about a judge turning up dead and said, “Maybe we should bring in Tom DeLay.”
Now we have a president assaulting the top judge in the nation, and you expect us to swallow that it’s okay? Please. Even if we didn’t have separation of powers, it’s bad form to hit someone who cannot hit back — and the Justices cannot.
It was a cheap shot from a cheap man. Bill Clinton described Obama best: “He has the political instincts of a Chicago street thug.”
Posted by: Millard | March 14, 2010, 9:14 pm 9:14 pm
“Now we have a president assaulting the top judge in the nation”
___________________________________
No we don’t.
Posted by: tierra | March 14, 2010, 9:58 pm 9:58 pm
So Axelrod had to go back 100 Years to find a worse example than OBAMA??? — Yeah, that figures, since he is the worst POTUS in that amount of time!!!
Posted by: TheLoyalOpposition | March 15, 2010, 12:54 am 12:54 am
gossipy opinion? my bad, I thought this was a government for the people by the people.
harry reid is senile. so he wants academics, senators and lawyers to serve on scotus.
nm the fact that jr was in law practice for 14 years. apparently we should put someone fresh from law school on the highest court in the land. with no experience with interpreting the constitution and having your work checked by your peers. academics? whos definition of an academic would apply? maybe a pe teacher? a second grade english lit teacher? whos to say not? I am completely thankful theres a seperation of powers. could you imagine reid running scotus? after all hes a senator.
Posted by: tony | March 15, 2010, 1:29 am 1:29 am
Fascinating that the focus should be on form and not substance.
Here we have an issue where American
corporations, which often have significant foreign investors can
simply carpet bomb elections with
multi-million dollar media buys
selling whatever message like so much soap powder.
So where does the topic of discussion
center. The venue in which the concerns
are raised.
I would say that such a ruling has a
dire affect on the future state of the
union and was worthy of mention.
Of course in absence of any valid defense for this decision, falling back to the debate tactic of changing the subject would seem a wise choice, even if it indeed is not one I can agree with.
Posted by: DrClue | March 15, 2010, 1:34 am 1:34 am
and as far as the scotus case is concerned,
worse ever.
worse than roe v wade.
our forefathers would be rolling in their graves. pitting huge corporations and wealthy elite against the people.
granting entities rights of the citizen is a horrendous slap in the face to our election process. that is no conservative decision. thats a republican decision.
“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history,
whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.”
Thomas Jefferson : American statesman (3rd US President: 1801-09)
Posted by: tony | March 15, 2010, 1:36 am 1:36 am
The Court should reject further appearances at the State of the Union as long as this piece of dog cr*p is in office. This is what happens when you vote cheap trash into the whitehouse.
Posted by: clr | March 15, 2010, 1:38 am 1:38 am
republicans, keep in mind
in the oft misquoted cooper union speech,
the famous “what is conservatism speech” ,
lincoln makes a point that is sharp even today.
“But you say you are conservative – eminently conservative – while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by “our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;” while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers”
Posted by: tony | March 15, 2010, 1:54 am 1:54 am
I don’t even understand what the beef is… it’s Obama’s speech.. It’s my party and I’ll cry if I want to, cry if I want to..
Posted by: DontGet818onMeNow | March 15, 2010, 8:37 am 8:37 am
So can we assume that we’ll never hear another rant from Conservative politicians including presidents about “activist judges legislating from the bench”. The fact is that there has been a very long history of tension between the 3 branches and this was far from the least civil.
And in the end the decision by the court was about as outrageous as one could conceive of. A non-human entity having constitutional rights is absurd. Beyond the obvious problems it opens the door the absurd becoming reality. Corporations can now argue from this precedent that regulations violate their constitutional rights, the corporation should be allowed to cast a vote etc.
Posted by: morethanpolite | March 15, 2010, 2:24 pm 2:24 pm
Roberts – for life….Obama only until 2012…must really bug him…;>)
Posted by: LongT | March 15, 2010, 5:47 pm 5:47 pm
Remove G.W. Bush Justices from the bench As soon as healthcare is passed! G.W. Bush should never been called POTUS!
Posted by: jack | March 15, 2010, 7:17 pm 7:17 pm
Yes…..this reality….Obama only until 2012…
Posted by: Ilan Ben Menachem | March 18, 2010, 5:31 am 5:31 am