Nation /

WSJ: Why Samuel Alito Shuns the State of the Union He found the partisan spectacle distasteful even before Obama’s inaccurate declamation about the Supreme Court in 2010.

  |   By Polling+ Staff

(Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Why Samuel Alito Shuns the State of the Union

He found the partisan spectacle distasteful even before Obama’s inaccurate declamation about the Supreme Court in 2010.

The State of the Union arrives again.

And Supreme Court Justice Samuel is not a fan.

The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto and lawyer David B. Rivkin Jr. headlines:

“Justice Samuel Alito’s first State of the Union address was a happy occasion, but things went downhill after that. ‘The Supreme Court now has two superb new members,’ President George W. Bush told the nation on Jan. 31, 2006. Justice Alito had been confirmed that same day, Chief Justice John Roberts four months earlier. Both were in the audience—justices get front-row seats—and both eventually came to regard the annual ritual as a burden. Justice Alito hasn’t attended one since 2010.

‘Unless you’re there on the floor, you don’t really appreciate what’s going on,’ Justice Alito told the Journal in an interview last spring. ‘The members [of Congress] are extremely vocal. . . . I remember during one where President Bush was speaking, and the leaders behind us were saying, ‘Bulls—! That’s bulls—!’ They’re always making these comments, and loud enough so you could hear it two or three rows away.’

That’s awkward for members of the court, whose official role requires them to rise above partisanship. Applause lines are even trickier, since silence can seem like dissent. ‘We sit there like potted plants, and then we look out of the corner of our eye to see whether any of our colleagues are going to stand up, or the Joint Chiefs are,’ Justice Alito said. ‘There are some times when you have to stand up. Like, ‘Don’t we honor the brave men and women who are fighting and dying for this country?’—you can’t not stand up for that. But then you say, ‘Isn’t the United States a great country’—you stand up—‘because we are going to enact this legislation’—maybe you have to sit down.’

In January 2010, the court itself became the target of a presidential declamation. “With all due deference to separation of powers,” President Barack Obama said, ‘last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections.’

As Democratic lawmakers arose behind the justices and clapped, TV cameras caught Justice Alito shaking his head and mouthing the words “not true.” He was right, as even the New York Times’s Linda Greenhouse acknowledged. Citizens United v. FEC didn’t touch the Tillman Act of 1907, which to this day prohibits corporate campaign contributions. It struck down provisions of a different law, enacted in 2002, and overturned precedents dating only to 1990 and 2003.

Justice Alito’s Reaction

Linda Greenhouse

Nearly every president finds something to criticize about the Supreme Court, but not every one gets to do it to …

Justice Alito was surprised by Mr. Obama’s error. ‘I imagine the State of the Union speech is vetted inside out and backwards,’ he told us. ‘Somebody should have seen that this statement was inaccurate.’ He also failed to realize he was on camera: ‘My mistake was that I didn’t think about the fact that the text is distributed to the media ahead of time. They knew that the president was going to talk about the Supreme Court, so they had their cameras on us. . . . That’s why it’s a sore point.’

Justice Alito isn’t the first member of the court to shun the State of the Union. John Paul Stevens never attended. Antonin Scalia last went in 1997, Clarence Thomas in 2006. ‘It has turned into a childish spectacle,’ Scalia said in 2013. ‘I don’t want to be there to lend dignity to it.’

Chief Justice Roberts was only a little less pointed in March 2010, six weeks after the Obama-Alito kerfuffle. ‘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,’ he told students at the University of Alabama Law School. ‘To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I’m not sure why we’re there.’

The chief justice has nonetheless continued to attend and is expected to do so again on Thursday night. As with those applause lines, you can’t even abstain without making a statement.”

Once upon a time a State of the Union was a dull, mid-day speech with no television cameras. Over time it was moved to evening – aka “prime time” for television. And, but of course, it became an inevitable television spectacular, replete with celebrated guests of the president in the gallery. Expect no changes in 2024. One bit of drama will doubtless swirl around whether President Biden can literally walk up the steps to the podium, and read the teleprompter. Stay tuned.