Watching the SOTU this evening, I recall being distinctly embarrassed for the President when he criticized the Justices of the Supreme Court as they were seated directly in front of him as part of the duties of their offices. I've said my share of indelicate things during my life, but I thought this was outrageous.

Apparently so did Justice Alito.

The shot of the black-robed Supreme Court justices, stone-faced, was priceless.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) stood up behind the justices and clapped vigorously while Alito shook his head and quietly mouthed his discontent.

A number of distinguished professors of law have come out, in spite of the late hour, to comment on the President's remarks. Big surprise--Obama WAS lying again.

The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication... ."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demogoguery of the worst kind.
— Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School

From Randy Barnett, Professor of Law at Georgetown University.

In the history of the State of the Union has any President ever called out the Supreme Court by name, and egged on the Congress to jeer a Supreme Court decision, while the Justices were seated politely before him surrounded by hundreds [of] Congressmen? To call upon the Congress to countermand (somehow) by statute a constitutional decision, indeed a decision applying the First Amendment? What can this possibly accomplish besides alienating Justice Kennedy who wrote the opinion being attacked. Contrary to what we heard during the last administration, the Court may certainly be the object of presidential criticism without posing any threat to its independence. But this was a truly shocking lack of decorum and disrespect towards the Supreme Court for which an apology is in order. A new tone indeed.

I am reminded of the "sixteen little words" controversy in George W. Bush's SOTU. Bush said.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

That has since been proven true, but at the time, the far-left called it not just a lie, but a damned lie, and it became the only thing anyone remembers about that particular SOTU.

This is far worse, and considering Obama's fragile political state, far more dangerous to his Presidency. It may not have been prudent for Bush to utter the 16 words, but Obama was at once intensely political, lying, rude and engaged in conduct unbecoming to a U.S. President. He'll no doubt find some loyal allies to defend his conduct, but more interesting will be who keeps silent on the matter.

Regardless of how everybody in Washington lines up, the hoped for 'reset' is DOA. Alito's "Not true" will dominate the news cycle for days to come.

There is something so, well, puerile about this President.

I used to play racketball as a young man (my knees won't take it anymore). Once while down in L.A. visiting my future wife, I was invited to play with an adopted uncle of hers, who was about 65 at the time. I was 22 and pretty good in my own estimation. I started out taking it easy on the old guy, but almost immediately fell 5 points behind. I played harder, faster and stronger and kept getting beat by this old man. First one game, then two, then three. He finally dismissed me in favor of better competition.

I learned a lot from that rather embarrassing performance--age and cunning will always beat youth and skill. He moved relatively little, focusing on owning the spots on the court that favored his game. His hits weren't hard and fast, but they were extremely well-placed. He was simply more efficient that I was.

Obama was wildly inefficient tonight. Perhaps Mr. Spock is in the throes of Pon Farr