"With All Due Deference to Separation of Powers..."

This moment from the State of the Union was a bit unsettling. I suppose it isn't technically prohibited for a sitting President (or in this case, a standing one...zing!) to put enormous political pressure on the Supreme Court in front of the entire nation. But the whole thing just seems profoundly at odds with the American reverence for the separation of powers. Y'know...checks and balances and all that.

I know this goes without saying, but if Bush had done this...oh my goodness. All over the country the dreadlocked, Che-wearing college sophomores would be apoplectic. The cries of "Fascism!" would be deafening.

And it was also just in poor taste. Ungraceful. I'm surprised Obama didn't immediately turn to the Joint Chiefs and say, "And these guys over here are incompetent too! They have no idea how to win a war."

The video is below.

*****
Update:
A lot of conservative commentators are pulling back from criticizing the president too harshly on this. They argue that it's perfectly acceptable for certain branches of our government to take shots at the other branches. After all, they say, presidents constantly criticize the legislature - so why not also the Supreme Court? If the branches of our government are truly separate, such tensions are to be expected, right?

I agree. I have no problem with the President's remarks per se, I just have a problem with the setting. I'm a huge fan of free speech, but I'm also a fan of tactfulness. Obama's remarks put the Court in a very uncomfortable position. The Justices' dignity forced them to sit calmly and take the President's undignified (and provably false) attack. And not all of them succeeded in restraining themselves.

Here's what made the situation so uncomfortable: Presidents and lawmakers - unlike the judiciary - are political creatures. The nature of their position makes toe-to-toe criticism of the other branches a healthy expression of independence. But the Court, unlike the Congress and the President, is not a democratic entity.

During the President's address, why does the Court sit silently while the Congress raucously approves or disapproves of presidential statements? Because it's important for the Court to be not only independent, but also impartial. If the Court were to applaud it would, in the eyes of the public, undermine their impartiality.

This sort of in-your-face criticism of the Court from the President has the same detrimental effect. It subjects the court to political pressure - right in front of the entire country. And look what it caused: By not respecting the impartiality of the Court, Obama struck a nerve with Alito, who then showed his own disapproval with Obama. The result for most Americans is a diminished view of the impartiality of the Court.

Now, I tend to think the Court is far too insulated from the political process anyway. But I think as long as our system claims to except judges from overt political pressure, the President should follow suit. Obama is, of course, free to criticize the Court, but it would be more tasteful and more consistent with our national character for him to do so in a non-confrontational setting (and ideally, with a measure of honesty).