Should justices attend State of the Union?

January 25, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Tonight is President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech in which he will highlight his triumphs while in office over the last year as well as areas that he feels need addressed. Last year, things got kind of awkward when the president called out the U.S. Supreme Court justices for their ruling on Citizens United, which said the government can’t ban political spending by corporations in elections.

The justices who attend the speech try not to react to what the president says. They are supposed to keep politics out of it when they make their rulings and don’t want their reactions at the speech to be construed as favoring a particular party. I understand why the justices attend, to show support for the president and the country, but when the event resembles a political rally with the constant standing ovations and applause from the president’s political party members, do the justices still need to be there?

  • Justices Attendance at State of the Union
    Given the actions of the present President of the United States at the last State of the Union address, I think that the Justices of the United States Supreme Court should not attend this event.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
  1. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  2. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.

  3. maybe if some of the socia workers would treat the foster parents better, they would continue to fostr.

  4. We have been asked to take in a 2 no old baby because mother is in very unstable situation. We want to do this but will need help with expenses such as medical and formula... Do we have to have custody thru court?

  5. Very troubling. A competent public defender is very much the right of every indigent person in the US or the Fifth amendment becomes meaningless. And considering more and more of us are becoming poorer and poorer under this "system," the need for this are greater than ever.... maybe they should study the Federals and see how they manage their program? And here's to thanking all the PD attorneys out there who do a good job.