Obama v. Supreme Court?

The past few days in American politics have been tumultuous ones, from the precedent-overturning decision by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, to the shocking rebuke of the Court's decision President Obama made during his State of the Union address.
While past presidents have often clashed with Supreme Court rulings, none thus far have been so bold as to voice their disapproval to the Justices' faces as Obama did Wednesday night. Usually, disapproval would be presented in a written statement, a press conference, or a statement from a third party such as a lawyer or spokesperson in order to distance the president from the disagreement with the highest court in the nation.
But Obama's literally head-on approach, as six of the justices, an unusually high number, were sitting directly in front of him during the State of the Union, has dissipated this distance and highlighted not only the national partisanship issue, but the issue of partisanship within the Supreme Court. Designed by the framers of the Constitution to be a wise, nonpolitical, and law-abiding body, the court is, unfortunately, not without divisions, if not by party lines than by liberal and conservative ideologies.
Some say that throwing the spotlight on the Supreme Court was an unwise decision. Peter G. Verniero, former Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court, said that the rebuke will lead to individual justices being thought of in "political terms," taking away from the desired nonpartisan nature of the Supreme Court.
But in the end, there will not always be agreement, or even respect, between the executive and judicial branches of government due to controversial decisions such as the one made last week. Perhaps the Supremem Court Justices can take a page from former Justice William Rehnquist, who skipped President Reagan's State of the Union address in order to attend a water color class at the YMCA. In this article, Liptak suggests that it is the responsibility of the justices to stay out of political affairs in order to uphold the reputation of the Supreme Court.

Source:
"Supreme Court Gets a Rare Rebuke, in Front of Nation"
by Adam Liptak, New York Times
www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/politics/29scotus.html?hp