publius 3 years, 2 months ago

The President is under no obligation to agree with Supreme Court Decisions; he is only obliged, by tradition, to obey them. President Obama is not the first to openly disagree with Supreme Court decisions in a State of the Union Address. In his 1988 Address President Reagan took pointed exception to Court rulings on school prayer and abortion, calling in each case for a Constitutional Amendment I would believe that many readers would support President Reagan's decision to ask Congress for resolutions calling for Amendments to overturn these Court decisions. Similarly, President Obama is calling on the legislature to act - in this case to pass new legislation. His rhetoric may have been a bit over the top for some, but his request for Congressional action to deal with a Supreme Court decision that he felt was not in America's best interest is not without precedent.

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal

enad 3 years, 2 months ago

publius,

You did not address the poll question in a direct fashion. The question was not whether it was alright for the President to disagree with the Supreme Court publically, the question was "was it correct in that venue?"

In my opinion, it was not a proper venue. It is alright for the President to disagree with the Court or individual componets thereof, and it is alright for the Court, or individual componets thereof, to disagree with the President, but in a publically televised address, I feel it was not appropriate.

If it was not appropriate for John Roberts to voice and opinion of disagreement, and not proper for Samuel Aleito to shake his head apparently in disagreement with what was said, then it stands to reason the venue was wrong.

Only Kings have absolute rule and with them it is not wise to disagree, but then, that is why we are here. We did not want a King. Pick a fight in public, get a fight in public.

• Sign in to reply
• Suggest removal