Candidate Barack Obama wanted to be a transformative president. Well, he's doing his best to transform some elements of the US government into broken down caricatures of what our founders intended them to be. The latest transformation to make the news is one observed by US Chief Justice John Roberts who said that the president's annual State of the Union address has "degenerated into a political pep rally."

Continued...

Speaking to law students at the University of Alabama, Chief Justice Roberts brought up President Obama's criticism of a recent ruling by the High Court during his January address and, while he acknowledged that anyone is free to criticize such rulings said, "There is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum. 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 the requirements of protocol - has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling." (source)

The Chief Justice was being very kind in his choice of words. In his address, President Obama said, "With all due deference to the separation of powers, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections." (source) Even ignoring the factual errors in his statement (the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling did not reverse a century of law and foreign corporations are barred by statute from donating to US political campaigns), Mr. Obama's campaign-like rhetoric was more than troubling in that setting. It was rude, inappropriate and (no surprise here) highly partisan.

In response to the Chief Justice's remarks in Alabama, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs ignored the substance of those remarks entirely. He made no comment on why the president transformed the State of the Union address from the Constitutionally mandated providing Congress with information to trying to score political points by attacking the judicial branch of government. What Mr. Gibbs did do was take the opportunity to continue to attack the Court with just enough changes to the original attack in January to hide the glaring falsehoods. "What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections - drowning out the voices of average Americans," Gibbs said. (source)

And the transformations go on.