One degree of separation from Justice Roberts

Good morning, and welcome to the weekly Republican rebuttal of President Obama's weekly Saturday address. Or as I like to call it, the GOP's weekly exercise in futility, seeing as how nobody listens to the President's Saturday address and even less listen to ours. Nevertheless, it's a long and hallowed tradition here in the Washington, much like wallowing in corporate money. That sound you hear in the background is Chief Justice Roberts trying rather unsuccessfully to suppress a laugh. You'll just have to take my word for that, of course, since we're not being televised. Which brings up a really interesting question - What the hell are we doing dressing up for a radio address? Heh heh, made him laugh out loud that time. Moving on to the point, President Obama today was once again criticizing the Supreme Court’s decision to let corporations spend without limit or any public disclosure on advertising aimed at influencing elections, and he was criticizing Senate Republicans for trying to protect these corporate rights by blocking his proposed regulations. To quote him verbatim, he said "a partisan minority in Congress is hoping their defense of these special interests and the status quo will be rewarded with a flood of negative ads against their opponents. It's a power grab, pure and simple." To which I would respond, duh. Ah, I've got Justice Roberts giggling again, which is good news because he certainly wasn't giggling half an hour ago when the President took it upon himself to once again to call that Supreme Court decision one of the worst ever. You were pretty hot around the collar about that, weren't you John? Well, Justice Roberts can't answer that because it might be seen by some as inappropriate for him to weigh in on what is basically a partisan difference of opinion. You see, here in Washington we also have a long and hallowed tradition called the separation of powers, which the Republican Party deeply respects, and for the Chief Justice to respond would understandably be seen as unseemly. So Justice Roberts, just give me a wink if you'd like to kick Obama's ass. I think I saw a wink, folks. To conclude, I would just like to ask the American people - at least the few who might be listening - why in the middle of the worst recession in memory is the President not focusing on jobs? I mean, he says this bill is about transparency. It's about transparency, all right: It's a transparent effort to help Democrats ahead of an election in which they clearly can't run on their record. Right, John? Ah, I think I saw a wink.

Roberts unsettled

Chief Justice Roberts has something he needs to get off his chest. Not only off his chest, but off his mind. It's been weighing heavily on both locations for several weeks now, and after giving it diligent deliberation, he has finally given voice to the cause of his concern: the terrible decision regarding the Supreme Court's ruling allowing unlimited corporate campaign spending. No, it's not the idea of turning the electoral system over to our corporate overlords that bothers him, it's the fact that the President criticized the ruling at the State of the Union that Roberts finds truly unsettling. "The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court - according to the requirements of protocol - has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling," Roberts told an audience at University of Alabama Law School. "I suppose we could change the protocol so that we would also be allowed to holler, but quite frankly, most of us are a little shy about doing so because we don't want to draw attention to these silly black robes. Which we have to wear to the event because of protocol. Hmm, come to think of it, I suppose we could change the protocol on that as well... after all, we are the Supreme Court." Roberts dictated a few quick notes on judicial fashion to a handy legal clerk before continuing. "But if I can cut to the chase, to the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we are there." "Somebody tell that half-wit that attendance isn't mandatory," interjected Justice Clarence Thomas. "I didn't go, and I don't plan on going again next year. Scalia didn't go. Alito went even though he didn't want to, and he ended up making half a fool of himself." "All I did was shake my head and move my lips," shouted Justice Alito, quick to the defense. "Jesus Christ, Thomas, what I was trying to was loosen up the protocol a little bit, just like the boss suggested." "Your comments are premature, Justice Alito," replied Roberts. "I haven't ruled on the matter of protocol yet. And Justice Thomas, I'm taking your argument under advisement. I may put forward a decision to not go to next years speech as well." "Well, I wouldn't miss it for the world," Justice Ginsberg responded decisively. "I rarely get to go anywhere exciting anymore. And these black robes are just fine. They're about the nicest thing I've got in my wardrobe at my age." "You're still a youngster to me, Justice Ginsberg," Justice Stevens said gallantly. "And while we're on the subject of age, let me take exception to Justice Roberts comment about the State of the Union degenerating into a pep rally. I've been going to these speeches for thirty-five years, and they haven't degenerated into anything. The president says where the nation is and where he wants to lead it, and for a couple of hours everyone pretends to be on the same page in an attempted show of unity. Just what do you have against pep rallies, anyway?" "He's a friggin activist," muttered Justice Sotomayor. "Wow," said Justice Robert, taken aback. "I may be the big cheese on this court, but it looks like I've still got a lot to learn." "Tell me about it," Justice Scalia concurred.