Obama, Roberts trade shots over elections finance ruling

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama and the Supreme Court have waded again into unfamiliar and strikingly personal territory.

When Chief Justice John Roberts told law students in Alabama on Tuesday that the timing of Obama's criticism of the court during the State of the Union address was "very troubling," the White House pounced. It shot back with a new denouncement of the court's ruling allowing a more active campaign role for corporations and unions.

Democrats hope to make the decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission part of their strategy to portray the conservative justices on the court as more protective of corporate interests than average Americans.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., opened a hearing on the decision Wednesday by declaring that "the Citizens United decision turns the idea of government of, by and for the people on its head." The committee's ranking Republican, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, countered that Obama and Democrats are mischaracterizing the ruling for political gain.

The court ruled 5 to 4 in January that corporations and unions had a First Amendment right to use their general treasuries and profits to spend freely on political ads for and against specific candidates. The court overturned its own precedents and federal law in the decision, which was hailed by conservatives and a few liberals as a victory for free political speech, and denounced by Obama, who said it would lead to elections being "bankrolled by America's most powerful interests."

Round Two began Tuesday, when Roberts spoke at the University of Alabama law school. He did not mention Citizens United in his speech, and declined to answer a question about criticism of the ruling.

But when asked whether the State of the Union address was the "proper venue" in which to "chide" the Supreme Court, Roberts did not hesitate.

"There is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum. The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according to the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."