User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 5:32:09 PM EDT
[#1]
perhaps they have to retain the un biased image.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 5:32:27 PM EDT
[#2]
Chuck Norris told them not to and none of them dare to fuck with Chuck.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 5:33:04 PM EDT
[#3]
think of them as a neutral 3rd party, they must appear to be unbiased.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 5:33:21 PM EDT
[#4]
They are supposed to represent "blind justice" and therefore cannot take sides for any president.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 5:33:27 PM EDT
[#5]
Because they 0wnz0r him.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 5:34:00 PM EDT
[#6]
Neutral and detached.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 5:34:10 PM EDT
[#7]
They're just cutouts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 5:34:51 PM EDT
[#8]
They aren't up for re-election.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 5:42:26 PM EDT
[#9]
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.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 5:43:21 PM EDT
[#10]
I don't think judges and the executive branch (or legislative branch for that matter) socialize.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 5:44:08 PM EDT
[#11]
Because they are the most powerful force in this land and dont give a shit what the Prez says.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 5:53:29 PM EDT
[#12]
They are supposed to be neutral and above the politics.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 5:54:45 PM EDT
[#13]
Because they have class?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2006 2:59:43 AM EDT
[#14]
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 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2006 3:06:08 AM EDT
[#15]
Kharn |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2006 3:10:14 AM EDT
[#16]
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 |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2006 9:50:11 AM EDT
[#17]
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 |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2006 9:52:57 AM EDT
[#18]
they didn't room to park all their walkers in front of them to help them standup
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2006 9:56:17 AM EDT
[#19]
They are afraid their Metamucil will kick in if they move too much.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2006 9:56:40 AM EDT
[#20]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2006 9:56:43 AM EDT
[#21]
I think I remember them standing and applauding a time or two during the first SOTU address after 9/11.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2006 9:56:51 AM EDT
[#22]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2006 9:57:44 AM EDT
[#23]
They are so stoned they can't stand up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2006 9:58:36 AM EDT
[#24]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2006 10:04:34 AM EDT
[#25]
cause they're passing judgement
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2006 10:07:07 AM EDT
[#26]
judgemental bastards!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2006 10:08:24 AM EDT
[#27]
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. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2006 10:16:56 AM EDT
[#28]
B-I-N-G-O |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2006 11:30:45 AM EDT
[#29]
|
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
