Posted by
Defend America on Friday, March 12, 2010 7:02:22 PM
Justices and politicians should boycott the State of the Union
Friday, March 12, 2010
The increasingly puerile spectacle of presidential State of the Union
addresses is indicative of the state of the union and is unnecessary:
The Constitution requires only that the president "shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union." But a reaction may be brewing against these embarrassing events. Speaking
in Alabama, Chief Justice John Roberts said "to the extent that" this
occasion "has degenerated into a political pep rally," he is "not sure
why we're there." He was referring to Supreme Court justices. But why is anyone there?
Roberts was responding to a question concerning the kerfuffle about Barack Obama's January address, wherein Obama criticized -- and flagrantly mischaracterized -- a recent Supreme Court decision that loosened limits on political speech.
The decision neither overturned "a century of law" nor conferred an
entitlement on foreign corporations to finance U.S. candidates.
Nevertheless, the Democratic donkeys arrayed in front of Obama leapt
onto their hind legs and brayed in unison, while the six justices who
were present sat silently. Justice Samuel Alito, in an act of lèse
majesté, appeared to mutter "not true" about Obama's untruths.
When Republican presidents deliver these addresses, Republican
legislators, too, lurch up and down like puppets on strings. And
Congress wonders why it is considered infantile.
Most of the blame for the State of the Union silliness, as for so
much else, goes to The Root of Much Mischief, a.k.a. Woodrow Wilson.
But a president whose middle name was Wilson made matters worse.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031102276.html