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. – Chief Justice John G. Roberts, answering a question from a University of Alabama law student about President Obama’s controversial remarks on Citizens United in the State of the Union.
Comments are hidden for your protection. Click here to show them.
View Comments
- /
- Posted in:
Advertising, Job Searches, Job of the Week, Shameless Plugs, Sponsored Content, This Is an Ad
Job of the Week: The South Rises Again
By Above the Law
Two weeks ago, Lateral Link brought you a Job of the Week from Hotlanta. Well, this week the South rises again, as the JOW comes from the Queen City herself. You just can’t keep a good woman down.Position: Corporate Associate (Securities)
Location: Charlotte, NC
Description: Firm is seeking a corporate associate with 3-5 years experience in securities, including 33 Act and 34 Act experience. Candidates must have excellent academic credentials and top law firm experience.
If you are currently a Lateral Link member, please see position #6824 on the Lateral Link site. If you are not a Lateral Link member, you can sign up for free at www.laterallink.com. If you are interested in this position or other positions in the south, please contact Jordan Abshire at jabshire@laterallink.com..
Chances are, if you decided to get into shape you wouldn’t tell anyone right away. After a few weeks of running, dieting and lifting weights, when you start to see some results and people noticed, you would let the cat out of the bag. It feels sort of foolish to talk about it until you have taken some action.
Making a career change is the same way. This creates a conundrum: how do you get started if you don’t want to talk to anyone about it until you’ve done something? Forget the “starting a law firm” websites – you probably already know that you need a telephone and letterhead. So what is the first step?
The best place to start is to define your niche. This includes determining the services you will offer, the types of clients you will seek, your pricing strategy, your staffing and recruitment approach and your management structure. These will often change from your current platform. Focus on how you will be different from the competition. For those leaving Biglaw, a “vertical niche” strategy is often the way to go.
The next step is to put together a detailed financial forecast. This allows you to project the profitability and income you can expect to generate. It’s not much more complicated than estimating your revenue and then subtracting all of the expenses you anticipate. You can increase the precision of your revenue forecast by breaking it into small pieces. Try to project revenue by client, or by matter, or by task. On the expense lines, be sure to research and re-research costs to make sure that you haven’t overlooked anything. Then add some cushion, because you are bound to forget something.
The last thing to consider is whether you want a partner or not. A successful practice requires business development, professional development, business management and a leader who will motivate the team. If you are all of these things, then you can slap your name on the door and be done. If not, consider the types of partners you need to attract, how you will recruit them and where you are comfortable ceding control. Many firms go under because partners cannot get along, and many more fold because they are missing these ingredients needed for a successful practice.
Now you are ready to go public with your plans to start a firm. As you approach potential clients, partners and employees, focus on the differentiators and invite them into the thought process. The more people who take emotional ownership of your idea, the more likely it is to succeed.
If you are an in-house or Biglaw attorney, starting a firm might be the best career path for you. Contact NexFirm and we will give you the tools to decide. 646-666-8989 or www.nexfirm.com
Careers
CHECK YOU COMMA SPLICES.
Roberts should shut up.
Come on Roberts. Your co-right wing buddy made a classless gesture.
Obama used the Justices as a cheap political prop; it was outrageous for Obama, a former teacher of constitutional law at Chicago, to attack the Court in that venue, and in that way, when he knew the Justices constituted a captive audience.
Chief Justice Roberts is quite right to question whether members of the Supreme Court should voluntarily serve as props in partian political theater. I suspect that few, if any, members of the Supreme Court will attend the SOTU address.
Um, if SCOTUS is supposed to be above politics, then it shouldn’t be troubling at all. Let POTUS and Congress bloviate all they want. The less SCOTUS says outside of 1 First Street the more prestige it keeps.
Supreme Court forced to sit quietly while being verbally harassed by an angry mob?…
AHA! I knew it!
If my hunch serves me, the Chief Justice is cleverly laying the groundwork for an argument that,…at the next State of the Union….Sup Ct justices will be protecting themselves by exercising their 2nd Amenment ‘individual’ rights.
Supreme Court forced to sit quietly while being verbally harassed by an angry mob?…
AHA! I knew it!
If my hunch serves me, the Chief Justice is cleverly laying the groundwork for an argument that,…at the next State of the Union….Sup Ct justices will be protecting themselves by exercising their 2nd Amendment ‘individual’ rights.
Roberts should not get involved in this. Just let it go, douchebag.
5 – Judges and Justices are human, just like the rest of us. They should not be put in situations where they have to face a hostile Congress while the President insults their decisions.
Of course there is a solution Roberts, just do not go if you are offended when a politician attacks your political decision.
2, you should shut up…forever.
Why are black people always scowling at Supreme Court Justices?
Obama should have learned something from Joe Wilson’s “You lie” moment. Important speeches like that aren’t really the place to bash the other side too overtly. Just not good form. While every branch should weigh in on the others to keep them in check, Citizens United wasnt really a controversial issue anyway. As Justice Thomas said, if one person and a group of people have free speech rights, merely ‘incorporating’ yourself doesnt change that. A corporation is not some big ugly monster that suddenly loses important procedural and substantive rights different from the people who make it up. Yes, it is not exactly the same, but Obama’s history as a constitutional law prof should have made him realize that corps and unions now get more rights as they should never have been denied, everyone wins. It’s OK if he doesnt like ven though as I said I’m confused what his problem is, but that shot at the court wasnt in the best taste.
13, In addtion to your forgetting to use punctuation correctly, you also seem to have forgetten corporations, unions, and organizations are not natural persons. As Lincoln said at Gettysberg, “that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth,” not “that government of the people, by organizations, for the organizations shall nto perish from the earth.”
CJ Roberts, I have more respect for Clarence Thomas and Scalia who don’t even bother attending these events. If you felt that offended while Obama was insulting your judicial sage, you and Alito should have turned your backs toward Obama during his speech. That would have distracted Obama and sent a powerful statement.
Litigants before the Supreme Court are supposed to sit there silently while the members of the court berate them.
Sheeeeeeet. Judges pay my ladies to insult them to their faces. Roberts got it for free from some dude? That don’t put money in my pocket, so I agree, Roberts, you shouldn’t have to put up with that.
But when you are ready for the good stuff. Call me. My ladies are are ready to WORK!
14 – What does Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address have anything to First Amendment rights? Your statement is a non sequiter to the issue.
What’s wrong with one branch of government criticizing another at the SOTU? The executive criticizes Congress frequently during the speech. Why does the SCOTUS deserve to be treated with kid gloves? Roberts should quit crying. He certainly wouldn’t have a problem if the POTUS lavished praise on his Court.
Remember when CJ Roberts was going to resign.
- Georgetown 1L
14
Ironic that you criticize someone for punctuation and then you spell something incorrectly.
Pot. Kettle. Black
For the record, immediately before this statement, CJR also said something to the effect of, “First of all, I think anybody can criticize members of the Supreme Court. Some people are even obligated to do this based on the office that they hold. But on the other hand, it is an issue of the circumstances and the setting.”
So CJR isn’t saying that one branch can’t criticize another. He’s saying there’s a more appropriate way in which to do so.
- Alabama 3L
For the record, immediately before this statement, CJR also said something to the effect of, “First of all, I think anybody can criticize members of the Supreme Court. Some people are even obligated to do this based on the office that they hold. But on the other hand, it is an issue of the circumstances and the setting.”
So CJR isn’t saying that one branch can’t criticize another. He’s saying there’s a more appropriate way in which to do so.
- Alabama 3L
14, since when did the Gettysburg Address set judicial precedent?
Maybe I’ll bring a lawsuit for my dreams under Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” precedent. Or maybe I’ll bring one for welfare under the Jerry McGuire’s “Show Me the Money” one. Stare decisis just got sick, yo.
The people surrounding you standing and cheering were elected by the people of this country, Mr. CJ, while you were not Their standing and cheering was on behalf of the 300 million people in this country, who happen to think you and four of your colleagues were kind of nutty and out of touch in this particular case.
15- For the record, Justice Thomas gave a speech in the same lecture series last year. Justice Alito did so in 1999. Some other folks with robes and lifetime appointments have done the same.
http://www.law.ua.edu/news/articles/?re=roberts10
10 FTW
He deserved it, corporate don’t = person, money don’t = speech. Stop crying.
25, you are dumb. 300 million are not represented by 60% or so of Congress (nor the president, who got like 53% of the vote), nor do 300 million think the Citizens case was wrongly decided. please stfu.
It’s terrible that the Justices were criticized for simply doing their jobs. As a lawyer who has appeared before many courts, I can sympathize.
“Shut up,” explained the liberals. (No surprise there.)
“With all due deference to separation of powers, Chief Justice Roberts can suck my big black dick”
- Barack Obama
Why do Conservatives hate gays and then always end up being gay???
—- straight liberal secure
As the slow-motion train wreck of Obama’s Administration has proven, if you’re pissing him off you must be doing something right. I mean, it’s like the Special Olympics out there.
Oh, WAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!
Cry me a freaking river, you wanko.
This is ridiculous. SCROTUS can’t get criticized? Boo hoo.
The President has to listen while Fox News or MSNBC rants on. Congressmen have to listen while Sean Hannity or Keith Olbermann go crazy.
Please.
The SCROTUS should just be able to sit back and do whatever the hell it wants while everyone else has to just take it, right?
Shame on you, Chief Justice Roberts.
Baby.
@2,3,8,35 et al – go fuck yourselves
14 & 28-
CHECK YOU OBITER DICTUM!!! “The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does”- C.J. Waite
14 & 28-
CHECK YOU OBITER DICTUM!!! “The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does”- C.J. Waite
Sorry for the double post
-37 & 38
36 = Chief Justice John Roberts
They have schools in Alabama?
Far more troubling is one who holds himself out as an “umpire” and then behaves like something else entirely.
Oh STFU CJR, you big baby. Sticks and stones and all that good stuff your mom should have taught you as a child….big fucking baby.
“The President has to listen while Fox News or MSNBC rants on. Congressmen have to listen while Sean Hannity or Keith Olbermann go crazy.”
Keith Olbermann / Sean Hannity / The President
One of these does not belong…or at least shouldn’t.
I’m against the guy and pretty much the entire bulk of his political positions and just about everything he stands for and even I wouldn’t offer that big of an insult to him. If he does belong in this group, your side really shouldn’t be surprised that we treat him with so little respect. We don’t even treat Sean Hannity with respect and he’s on our side.
16 Wins. Know your role.
32 FTW.
“Supreme Court forced to sit quietly while being verbally harassed by an angry mob?…
AHA! I knew it!
If my hunch serves me, the Chief Justice is cleverly laying the groundwork for an argument that,…at the next State of the Union….Sup Ct justices will be protecting themselves by exercising their 2nd Amendment ‘individual’ rights.”
That would hardly be the first time politicians chose to go armed in the Capitol Building. Shit, in the late 1850s, most Senators and Congressmen were wearing braces of pistols and Bowie knives, and carrying clubs.
48 FTW!
– not 48
@44 Only Teabagging whack jobs actually disagree with Obama’s record as President. All even moderately smart Republicans secretly agree that he’s doing a great job under difficult partisan circumstances.
Which are you?
“I think you miss the point.”
Well, with thorough well-sourced and fact checked reasoning like that, who can argue?
“Only Teabagging whack jobs actually disagree with Obama’s record as President. All even moderately smart Republicans secretly agree that he’s doing a great job under difficult partisan circumstances.”
“Name-calling” aka page one of liberals’ two-page debating play book.
“Teabagging whack jobs who disagree with Obama’s record as President” apparently now includes Massachusetts.
51 is funny.
@53 – If you understood anything about politics, you would understand that Massachusetts was about Martha Coakley taking the win for granted, not about Obama’s record.
Thanks for playing, though.
51
@44/51/53…
Oh no you didn’t!
REPUBLICANS are the ones who only have a two-page debating play book.
Take THAT!!
“51 is funny.”
It’s even funnier as long as you guys continue to lose elections.
“@53 – If you understood anything about politics, you would understand that Massachusetts was about Martha Coakley taking the win for granted, not about Obama’s record.”
Sure, and New Jersey was just about Corzine.
Excuses are fun–as long as it’s your side that’s making them. What’s the explanation of your next loss going to be?
Hey, if you explain your humiliation in 2006 and 2008, I’ll explain our reduced majorities in 2010. Then you can explain the reversal when The Educated One rolls right into his second term in 2012.
“Hey, if you explain your humiliation in 2006 and 2008, I’ll explain our reduced majorities in 2010.”
Sure,
1. Bush quit even pretending to be a fiscal conservative and the right started hating him and the Republicans in Congress almost as much as the Democrats did. That benefited you guys in the last two elections. It will be of less benefit now.
2. He engaged in nepotism, purposefully, given that members of an administration often go rogue in a second term–he wanted to shore up loyalty. In the words of David Frum “Nepotism and incompetence don’t have to go hand-in-hand, but they did in the Bush administration.” It came back to bite both him and the rest of the country big time.
2. Bush can’t speak worth a damn and didn’t even try to counter the other side during his second term. He decided if he’d sit back and be “Presidential” that his views would win out in the public and in history…an equally noble and stupid strategy, and a reason I actually do think Obama has some brains in engaging in this sort of pettiness. I just won’t even pretend to call it presidential, that’s all. More to the point, if the other side is attacking you and you don’t respond, it’s eventually assumed that everything you’re not responding to is true. McCain also followed this equally noble and stupid strategy in the 2008 election with similar results.
“Then you can explain the reversal when The Educated One rolls right into his second term in 2012.”
I actually do think Obama still has a decent shot at 2012, just like Clinton did in ‘96. I’m sure it will be as equally beneficial to the Democrats in 2012 as it was in ‘96.
“I’ll explain our reduced majorities in 2010″
Oh, and you’re kidding yourself if you think you’re still going to have the House after 2010. Just about every major political strategist is predicting you’re about to get whacked on that front.
I dunno, sometimes I imagine what it would be like if we had President McCain (or President Palin if the stress got to him) and think what things would be like right now…
Honestly, a devastated and mostly non-functioning financial system, war with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and probably some other random country, the Russians acting like the next USSR to call McCain’s bluff while military spending doubles, McCain lets his base ban gays, abortion and minorities, while the dollar plummets and states are unable to provide basic services because of funding cuts from the federal government doesn’t sound that great right now.
Luckily, when I have this dream next it goes into the part with the velociraptors who give me mint ice cream and then turn into 2003 Lindsay Lohan giving me a blowjob but then they turn into 2010 Lindsay Lohan giving me a blowjob and it’s like holy shit I wish Courtney Love were and Liz Cheney got into a fight over me instead and then I wake up in a cold sweat and run to CNN and make sure that Sarah Palin is still in Alaska and saying stupid shit on Fox News and fucking up Romney’s mormon underwear free market campaign shit before I can go back to sleep, but still.
59, don’t go there, it’s unsporting of you.
the Repturds are extinct, they have no possible viable candidates to oppose His Awesomeness in 2012.
there’s nobody even on the radar, meaning BO will be the first president to run virtually unopposed.
in their current condition, we have to view the GOP as a short bus full of tards, cretins and imbeciles. would you laugh at an outbreak of explosive diarhea at the special olympics? well, yeah, maybe, but i’ve made my point.
Economy turns around in 2011. 2012 is a boom year.
Obama wins easily at the end of 2012.
Well…unless the economy tanks again. Then Mitt Romney will be our next president (assuming the Southern Baptists don’t crucify him first).
“59, don’t go there, it’s unsporting of you.
63 see 60. It’s helpful to read before posting.
“the Repturds are extinct,”
Again, back to page one of the play book.
It’s too bad you guys can’t shout over the internet or you could go to page two.
I will bet my house, partnership and 401K that no Repub will defeat Obama in the 2012 election.
I will add my kids’ trust funds too.
POTUS could be videotaped sodomizing a Cub Scout atop a pile of dead puppies and still cruise to victory.
63 nailed it, THERE ARE NO REPUBS LEFT!!!
I’m not thrilled about it, there once was a halfway-decent GOP that deserved the label of loyal opposition. Those days are over, and the Republic suffers for it.
Republican 2-page argument handbook:
1. Call liberals biased.
2. Invoke Ronald Reagan.
65, you are still on page one.
I’m telling you, this is clever stuff.
I’m equally certain -certain- that a President with sub-50 and continually declining approval ratings faces no decent chance of opposition in 2012.
It would be about as likely as a Republican winning in Massachusetts. I mean, who are they going to nominate?
It’s too bad there are no longer any serious Republicans who agree with me and that they’re all taking such a hard and fast stance against Obama.
I wonder why they’re winning elections all of a sudden?
“1. Call liberals biased.
2. Invoke Ronald Reagan.
65, you are still on page one.”
Really, where in this entire thread have I called liberals biased?
Logic = liberal’s enemy
60,
It’s no fun trolling you if you’re going to be all “thoughtful” and “reasonable” about it.
- 59
“It’s no fun trolling you if you’re going to be all “thoughtful” and “reasonable” about it.”
Damnit, I thought I was the troll! Sorry, I guess I’m getting used to this.
If you think this is bad…visit the emperor and his new clothes at the Hudson County, NJ Superior Court.
If you think this is bad…visit the emperor and his new clothes at the Hudson County, NJ Superior Court.
If you think this is bad…visit the emperor and his new clothes at the Hudson County, NJ Superior Court.
OBAMA WILL WIN IN ‘12
Should we visit the emperor and his new clothes at the NJ Superior Court?
“While every branch should weigh in on the others to keep them in check, Citizens United wasnt really a controversial issue anyway.”
I guess that’s why the SC granted cert.
I went to a top 60 law school and now work in state government. Suck on that heebs.
Serious question – does anyone else have such a saggy ballsack that when you are taking a poo, your sack actually hits the toilet water? I can’t tell you how annoying it is to have to hold your ballsack up while taking a poo.
“While every branch should weigh in on the others to keep them in check, Citizens United wasnt really a controversial issue anyway.”
Which is why 80% of polled americans thought it was wrongly decided. Yay, polled americans! You’re more involved than I thought.
After reading these comments Im not surprised most of you dont have jobs…
Still, it’s just a little chilling to hear POTUS publicly criticize SCOTUS in the Chamber.
Guys at my highschool used to use Supreme Court Justices as theatrical props during their power point presentations all the time. It was no big deal.
As 22 already stated, CJ Roberts prefaced the comment by saying that criticism is expected and necessary to keep each branch in check and that some people, for example, the President of the United States, are obligated to criticize the Court. The point of the comment was to acknowledge the inappropriate setting.
–Alabama 2L
Umpires have to sit expressionless while those around yell and jeer.
Umpires have to sit expressionless while those around yell and jeer.
@28 money does equal speech, fool. Money is a function of your time of day and effort (just as words are) – your discretion in using it is a form of decision making about speech. Anything to the otherwise is slavery – like living for a plantation, medieval fief, or soviet russia.
@28 money does equal speech, fool. Money is a function of your time of day and effort (just as words are) – your discretion in using it is a form of decision making about speech. Anything to the otherwise is slavery – like living for a plantation, medieval fief, or soviet russia.
Justice Roberts – bound by “protocol,” but apparently not by precedent.
That’s all we need from you now, Roberts.
Obama does not seem to remember that US Judges (the Supremes & their brethren) are a CO-EQUAL branch of the government..