Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/31/2006 5:31:01 PM EDT
I noticed that a few times and find it odd...is it custom, or what???

Michael
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 5:32:09 PM EDT
perhaps they have to retain the un biased image.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 5:32:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2006 5:32:43 PM EDT by mattman42]
Chuck Norris told them not to and none of them dare to fuck with Chuck.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 5:33:04 PM EDT
think of them as a neutral 3rd party, they must appear to be unbiased.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 5:33:21 PM EDT
They are supposed to represent "blind justice" and therefore cannot take sides for any president.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 5:33:27 PM EDT
Because they 0wnz0r him.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 5:34:00 PM EDT
Neutral and detached.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 5:34:10 PM EDT
They're just cutouts.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 5:34:51 PM EDT
They aren't up for re-election.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 5:42:26 PM EDT
They are superior to the POTUS. They dont need to clap. They don't need to be re-elected. They do not need to have any loyalties after being confirmed. They don't have to stick to any of the morals or ethics that got them the job. They have the best job there is in the US.

They can be the most dangerous people in the country, and I hope all of them that voted in favor of eminent domain lose everything they have ever acquired plus every member of thier family losing everything they have ever owned as well.




Link Posted: 1/31/2006 5:43:21 PM EDT
I don't think judges and the executive branch (or legislative branch for that matter) socialize.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 5:44:08 PM EDT
Because they are the most powerful force in this land and dont give a shit what the Prez says.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 5:53:29 PM EDT
They are supposed to be neutral and above the politics.
Link Posted: 1/31/2006 5:54:45 PM EDT
Because they have class?
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 2:59:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Triumph955i:
perhaps they have to retain the un biased image.



I'm not so sure this is true.

How many times in the last 250 odd years has the SC, as a group, decided to NOT attend the SOTU speach?

When was the last time?

We have any SC experts here?

Thanks,

Merlin
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 3:06:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Merlin:

Originally Posted By Triumph955i:
perhaps they have to retain the un biased image.


I'm not so sure this is true.
How many times in the last 250 odd years has the SC, as a group, decided to NOT attend the SOTU speach?
When was the last time?
We have any SC experts here?
Thanks,
Merlin

I believe several declined to attend the SOTU during Clinton's impeachment scandal, it created quite a stir.

Kharn
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 3:10:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/1/2006 3:11:51 AM EDT by shooter220]

Originally Posted By Merlin:

Originally Posted By Triumph955i:
perhaps they have to retain the un biased image.



I'm not so sure this is true.

How many times in the last 250 odd years has the SC, as a group, decided to NOT attend the SOTU speach?

Merlin



Not an expert, but I know a couple things on the subject. Triumph has it right, the justices are not supposed to be expressing political opinions at all. There attendence is similar to that of the Joint Chiefs (who do sometimes express support for their CINC during the speech) except that they can not express an opinion on anything which may come before them on the court. Which means that they are not supposed to express an opinion on anything. The notable exception last night was that 7 of them rose and applauded the appointments of Roberts and Alito. That is about as emotional as you will see them, generally.


ETA: The Court ALWAYS attends when there is an address, but in 250 years the SOTU has not always been a speech, for many years it was a letter addressed to Congress. That tradition changed, I believe with WOodrow WIlson who went back to delivering the SOTU during an appearance before a joint session of Congress.

shooter
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 9:50:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By shooter220:

Originally Posted By Merlin:

Originally Posted By Triumph955i:
perhaps they have to retain the un biased image.



I'm not so sure this is true.

How many times in the last 250 odd years has the SC, as a group, decided to NOT attend the SOTU speach?

Merlin



Not an expert, but I know a couple things on the subject. Triumph has it right, the justices are not supposed to be expressing political opinions at all. There attendence is similar to that of the Joint Chiefs (who do sometimes express support for their CINC during the speech) except that they can not express an opinion on anything which may come before them on the court. Which means that they are not supposed to express an opinion on anything. The notable exception last night was that 7 of them rose and applauded the appointments of Roberts and Alito. That is about as emotional as you will see them, generally.


ETA: The Court ALWAYS attends when there is an address, but in 250 years the SOTU has not always been a speech, for many years it was a letter addressed to Congress. That tradition changed, I believe with WOodrow WIlson who went back to delivering the SOTU during an appearance before a joint session of Congress.

shooter



Like someone said above, the SC did not attend one of Klinton's SOTU speach. I believe everyone of them declined or had a "conflict".

Thanks,

Merlin
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 9:52:57 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 9:56:17 AM EDT
They are afraid their Metamucil will kick in if they move too much.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 9:56:40 AM EDT
Apparently there was applause from the SC justices, but it was somewhat controlled. See the link below:

volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_01_29-2006_02_04.shtml#1138770476
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 9:56:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/1/2006 9:57:00 AM EDT by Rakky]
I think I remember them standing and applauding a time or two during the first SOTU address after 9/11.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 9:56:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/1/2006 9:58:09 AM EDT by WyattEarp]

Originally Posted By mattman42:
Chuck Norris told them not to and none of them dare to fuck with Chuck.




Yeah, but that's only because Jack Bauer made Chuck tell them.

ETA: On a serious note, they must keep themselves unbiased. I did notice them applaud a couple of times though.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 9:57:44 AM EDT
They are so stoned they can't stand up.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 9:58:36 AM EDT
IIRC, I don't remember seeing members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff giving any applause at a previous SOTU. I listened to this year's SOTU on the radio so I don't know if that was the same this year.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 10:04:34 AM EDT
cause they're passing judgement
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 10:07:07 AM EDT
judgemental bastards!
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 10:08:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Kharn:

Originally Posted By Merlin:

Originally Posted By Triumph955i:
perhaps they have to retain the un biased image.


I'm not so sure this is true.
How many times in the last 250 odd years has the SC, as a group, decided to NOT attend the SOTU speach?
When was the last time?
We have any SC experts here?
Thanks,
Merlin

I believe several declined to attend the SOTU during Clinton's impeachment scandal, it created quite a stir.

Kharn



IIRC, they didn't show up for that SOTU because Clinton had purjured himself in a Federal Courthouse and decieved the Judge in her Courtroom. The Justices were supporting the Federal Judges beneath them and that they weren't buying the Clinton "It's only about sex" arguement.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 10:16:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:

Originally Posted By Kharn:

Originally Posted By Merlin:

Originally Posted By Triumph955i:
perhaps they have to retain the un biased image.


I'm not so sure this is true.
How many times in the last 250 odd years has the SC, as a group, decided to NOT attend the SOTU speach?
When was the last time?
We have any SC experts here?
Thanks,
Merlin

I believe several declined to attend the SOTU during Clinton's impeachment scandal, it created quite a stir.

Kharn




IIRC, they didn't show up for that SOTU because Clinton had purjured himself in a Federal Courthouse and decieved the Judge in her Courtroom. The Justices were supporting the Federal Judges beneath them and that they weren't buying the Clinton "It's only about sex" arguement.



B-I-N-G-O
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 11:30:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Spy4Cia: I noticed that a few times and find it odd...is it custom, or what???
The Secret Service told them not to make any sudden moves under those black robes.
Top Top