re: White House Vs. Supreme Court

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-20000226-504564.html

Roberts clearly has the right not to attend the State of the Union Address. Perhaps he won't attend in the future, which is fine. In fact, almost no one actually has to watch the Address. People do so, presumably, because they are interested in what the President has to say. The Address is never only a speech filled with impartial facts; it always presents the President's own opinion and agenda. It is normal for the President to give his opinion about what the Congress ought to do and ought not to do, so why not the Supreme Court? They are all equal branches, and they all have a voice, but this particular forum is for the President to voice his opinion. Again, if Roberts is bothered by this, that's his problem. It is possible that he has gotten too used to being deferred to, and that he would benefit from being challenged directly in a public forum more often. It's good for the Supreme Court to be somewhat insulated from politics, as they are, but they shouldn't see themselves as completely unaccountable.

This decision in particular seems like one in which the Supreme Court stepped beyond the appropriate limits of its power, by striking down some very important laws based on arcane reasoning that is only scarcely grounded in the US Constitution. Quite possibly this could be very harmful in the long run, and Obama is right to be calling for action on this. Congress has many possible ways to mitigate this decision, plus the option of a constitutional amendment to entirely negate it, and it's important for them to know that they have the President's enthusiastic support in this.