(Thumbnail image: The White House)

It's the Supreme Court versus President Obama after a much-debated incident resurfaced from January's State of the Union address. Remember this?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: "Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests--including foreign corporations--to spend without limit in our elections."

Resurrecting the debate over whether President Obama was appropriate in publicly voicing opposition to a Supreme Court decision--Chief Justice John Roberts--a Bush appointee-- told a group of students in Alabama the State of the Union address has "degenerated into a political pep rally."

And the media pounced.

 
“…for the Supreme Court to speak out against the president, that’s a WHOLE new thing.” (Fox News)
“It is very unusual.” (CNN)
“It is extremely unusual.” (MSNBC)
 

But is it? A constitutional scholar tells MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan—the only thing unusual about this back-and-forth is that we were able to watch it play out.

 
“The back and forth is definitely—there’s a historical pattern of that going back to John Adams and John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson. We didn’t necessarily see it on the same TV set though. ... Remember that there was a Supreme Court Justice—Justice Chase who was impeached for being too political. So this is by no means anything close to what was happening at the beginning of the Republic.”

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin says the perceived feud between President Obama and Chief Justice Roberts is less about its most recent ruling and more about raw politics.

“This whole thing is a great civics lesson. There’s this popular perception the Supreme Court is isolated from politics, in fact it’s not. John Roberts, Sam Alito-- they are political conservatives who are ruling against the Obama administration at every turn.”

If that’s the case, CBS chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford says it’s President Obama who started it.

"The president threw the first verbal punch in his State of the Union speech. He broke with tradition and lashed out at the Supreme Court for its recent decision that said corporations and unions could spend unlimited money on political ads."

And in the online print accompaniment of that piece, Crawford sides with the Chief Justice.

“He’s right. The justices have to sit there with their hands in their laps and their faces blank. … And that's why some justices won't go to the State of the Union address -- and why none of them probably ever will again after this year's dressing down from the president.”

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs released a statement defending the President's position. And on Fox News, ABC's Rick Klein says while risky--the move was appropriate.

 
“I have a hard time viewing it even as an error on the part of the White House. This is a former constitutional law professor. President Obama knew exactly what he was doing when he decided to take on this ruling. This ruling is not popular. ... The White House likes discussing the politics of that, but I think picking a fight like that, but it is risky because people have a lot of respect for the Supreme Court."

Writer: Newsy Staff