Roberts unsettled by Obama's public criticism of Supreme Court

From the "Cry me a river" Department:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told law students Tuesday that he found it "very troubling" to be surrounded by loudly cheering critics at President Obama's State of the Union address.
Here's a clue Roberts ... Get used to it!

Full story

Here's Joe Sudbay's take on this:

Thin-skinned Chief Justice didn't like criticism of campaign finance decision

John Roberts has a very thin skin. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is peeved that the President criticized the Supreme Court's campaign finance decision during the State of the Union:

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Barack Obama's first State of the Union address was "very troubling" and that the annual speech to Congress has "degenerated into a political pep rally."

Responding to a University of Alabama law student's question about the Senate's method of confirming justices, Roberts said senators improperly try to make political points by asking questions they know nominees can't answer because of judicial ethics rules.

"I think the process is broken down," he said.

I think the campaign finance system is broken down after the Citizens United decision. Robert Gibbs explained what is really "very troubling":

"What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections — drowning out the voices of average Americans," Gibbs said. "The president has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response."

Glenn Greenwald has an excellent take on Roberts' outburst, which concludes:

Supreme Court Justices, in particular, have awesome, unrestrained power. They are guaranteed life tenure, have no authorities who can sanction them except under the most extreme circumstances, and, with the mere sweep of a pen, can radically alter the lives of huge numbers of people or even transform our political system (as five of them, including Roberts, just did, to some degree, in Citizens United). The very idea that it's terrriby wrong, uncouth, and "very troubling" for the President to criticize one of their most significant judicial decisions in a speech while in their majestic presence -- not threaten them, or have them arrested, or incite violence against them, but disagree with their conclusions and call for Congressional remedies (as Art. II, Sec. 3 of the Constitution requires) -- approaches pathological levels of vanity and entitlement. The particular Obama/Roberts/Alito drama is an unimportant distraction, but what this reflects about the mindset of many judges, including (perhaps especially) ones on the Supreme Court and obviously the Chief Justice of that court, is definitely worth considering.

*****

We are often led to believe that judges are imbued with some mystical powers of fairness and justice. They're not. They're political appointees. For years, John Roberts was groomed for his job by the repugicans. Make no mistake, Roberts is on the Court to push an ideological agenda. And, that is exactly what he is doing.

Obama had every right to criticize the Citizens United decision.
He would have been wrong not to.
Presidents are allowed to criticize the Supreme Court, and have.
Supreme Court justices, especially the chief justice, are supposed to be objective and above politics. The court isn't supposed to respond to anything at the State of the Union.
For Roberts to be whining about Obama's speech a good month after the SOTU is rather pathetic. If he doesn't like the rules, he can always quit.
Then again, Roberts' style is more to simply overturn rules that don't jive with his political agenda.