Legal News

The State of the Union, Law Blog Style

By Peter Lattman

Over Thai food (Land) and a glass of white wine (Bourgogne Chitry), the Law Blog settled in for the State of the Union address last night. The Law Blog’s wife had to calm us down when we first saw Michael Mukasey enter the chamber. (At 5-foot-7 or so, the new attorney general looked rather short walking in with next to Hammerin’ Hank Paulson.) And we got equally excited when the Supremes strutted down the aisle. But alas, only four (pictured attended the address.

It’s always fun watching the justices sit there stoically, unable to clap for fear of betraying judicial neutrality on matters poltical. They surely became a bit self-conscious when at one point during the speech, President Bush gave them a bit of a wink and a nod and launched into this:

On matters of justice, we must trust in the wisdom of our founders and empower judges who understand that the Constitution means what it says. (APPLAUSE from Republicans) I’ve submitted judicial nominees who will rule by the letter of the law, not the whim of the gavel. Many of these nominees are being unfairly delayed. They are worthy of confirmation, and the Senate should give each of them a prompt up-or-down vote. (APPLAUSE from Republicans)

A couple of years ago on the PrawfsBlawg, law professors examined the SCOTUS’s attendance at SOTU. “The Court is a coequal institution and its presence at the SOTU might be taken both as reminding the other branches of that fact and as signaling the government’s stability and that all the branches of the federal government ultimately share some sense of common cause,” wrote Paul Horwitz. Ethan Lieb asked another question: “Is it really necessary for them to wear their robes?”

Hey Law Blog readers, anything interesting to say about the Supremes attendance at the State of the Union address?

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on January 29, 2008 (boomark / email).