The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Don't Go to the State of the Union
Let the Wilsonian Nightmare End
Over at The Dispatch, I have a new piece on the State of the Union address and why the justices should stay home. After President Obama caused a stir by criticizing the Court for its Citizens United decision during the State of the Union address, I wrote an article on presidential criticisms of the judiciary in public speeches and on the evolution of the State of the Union address. Chief Justice John Roberts complained after that episode that the event seemed like a presidential pep rally. Well, no duh. The State of the Union is a presidential pep rally. That was Woodrow Wilson's goal when he started the modern tradition of an annual in-person speech to a joint session of Congress.
One can see why such a platform is politically useful to the president. But no one else should play along, or pretend that the State of the Union is some kind civic ceremony. It is, and has always been, a vehicle for the president to bully Congress into doing what he wants. There is no reason for the justices to attend such an event, and no reason for the opposition members of Congress to show up either.
From the piece:
Who knows what Trump might choose to say in this State of the Union address, just days removed from this signature loss in the Supreme Court and with a long track record of losses in the lower courts. Will the justices be required to "sit there expressionless" as the president's "cheering and hollering" supporters surround them and the president himself looks down on them and calls them fools and perhaps announces his own court-packing plan?
Now would be a good time for the Wilsonian experiment to come to an end. It seems like it is only a matter of time before the Republican prediction from back in 1913 comes true and a president is greeted with a cacophony of boos. Instead of Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi waiting until the end of a Trump presidential address to show her disdain by ripping up his speech, a future House speaker might take the opportunity to show even less restraint while sitting on camera behind the president. Rather than a single member of Congress shouting "liar" at President Joe Biden during his speech, a partisan majority might decide to shout down the president with jeers and boos. After the midterm elections, an emboldened new Democratic congressional majority might simply refuse to invite President Trump to the chambers to deliver a speech at all. He can, after all, deliver a speech from the White House lawn any time he wants.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Given the theatre surrounding the State of the Union, from the democrat posturing and costuming in the venue to the not directly connected babbling of the "response", it is all a joke.
Trump should just mail the legislature a postcard reading "FUBAR", and get on with the job at hand.
You may not like it, but the speech is a requirement of Article II, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Although to meet that threshold I suppose a President could write down his speech and send it that way instead.
Genuinely curious, how do you derive speech from "give information" on the state of the union? Washington gave a speech, then it was all missives for well over a hundred years.
While there, probably, were no Power Points or Excel spreadsheets during that time, I would guess some were not in the form of a speech.
"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;"
Nothing there about a speech. He can do so in writing. Which was the practice of presidents for about 120 years.
I agree with Whittington's suggestion, but the chance of Donald Trump foregoing an opportunity to posture is about the same chance as all the snow in my driveway magically melting away.
I've agreed with it for years, but I'm afraid that if they decide to do it now, it would be viewed solely through the lens of MAGA/anti-Trump.
It is not.
Yes; that's the way it was done for over a century. Except it wasn't the text of a speech; it was a report.
No, the report is a requirement. Every President from Washington to Taft delivered it in writing. Wilson was the first to turn it into a speech (and even after he started the trend, Hoover went back to a written report).
The current media circus is an entirely modern invention, not required by the Constitution and should be abandoned.
Pretty sure the "liar" incident was during an Obama SOTU speech, not Biden. It was my Congressman, Joe Wilson. And Joe was right. Obama was lying. The left really wants to tear down civility, doesn't it.
Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi waiting until the end of a Trump presidential address to show her disdain by ripping up his speech
Some have wondered if that paper was the literal delivery product, as engineering or business might say, and hence wasn't hers to rip up. On the other hand, the Constitution doesn't say Congress even has to listen to any of it, much less specify archival procedures.
They could have auctioned it off.
It is, and has always been, a vehicle for the president to bully Congress into doing what he wants.
The Constitution notes that the president "shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."
It is a bit exaggerated to say this is about "bullying."
It is a partisan policy speech. Ideally, the speechwriter spends some time to provide some quality. SOTUs have been a mixed bag.
In today's world, making it a televised event isn't surprising. It is okay to have set-piece events where the president and Congress come together.
In today's partisan world, justices being there is more problematic. Some partisan feedback isn't necessarily a big deal. Britain, during questioning time, has made it a tradition.
The wider problem is that Trump is an illegitimate tyrant troll.
It's spreading! A Congressperson on CNN just now is staying home.
I've tried many times, but I think my personal best is about 10 minutes. That's how long it takes for my eyes to glaze over from watching a SOTU address. It is, so essentially, more of what has already been said, with aplomb, every time.
Supreme Court justices should cut out their attendance. I don't see how their attendance can help them or the country.