Monica brought up the president's criticism of the Supreme Court, but I just want to add a couple more points. On the one hand, I agree with Jon Chait that the reaction to Sam Alito's reaction to Obama's criticisms in the State of the Union address has been very much overblown. On the merits, it's true that the oldest precedent explicitly overruled by the Court was only 20 years old. It's also true that the logic of the ruling puts the constitutionality of century-old law in serious question. But whoever you think is right, the most important fact is that Obama isn't a king, and I don't see Alito's reaction as objectionable.
On the other hand, I think this cuts both ways. Like Monica, I don't think the Supreme Court represents royal authority either. So I also strongly disagree with Glenn Reynolds and Randy Barnett that it was somehow inappropriate for Obama to criticize the Court's recent campaign-finance ruling. To claim that Obama was "demagoguing the First Amendment" is just question-begging -- it's only true if one believes that the Supreme Court's highly contestable interpretation of the First Amendment in this case is the only possible one, which is silly, particularly since if Sandra Day O'Connor were still on the Court ,the case would have come out the other way. Obama didn't call for the justices to be impeached; he made reasonable criticisms of a constitutional ruling. Why this is suddenly beyond the pale -- perhaps even requiring an apology! -- because some justices are in attendance I can't tell you. Neither Alito nor Obama broke any rules that would be worth observing in a democracy.
--Scott Lemieux
