Presidential Comments About Pending SCOTUS Decisions

At VC, Professor Adler has a useful post discussing a forthcoming study reporting that President Obama has commented on pending SCOTUS decisions with more frequency and more depth than previous presidents. I agree with Adler that the President's practice is a poor one, since it lends the impression that the Court is not a neutral body and is subject to external influence. Adler distinguishes, as would I, between comments made during deliberations (inappropriate) and comments made before argument and during the briefing (appropriate). 

I would add that the reason for this President's increased rhetoric concerning pending cases is not likely merely the fact that he was a U.Chicago law professor, but also because the Supreme Court has now heard three cases threatening the President's signature legislative achievement: Obamacare. 

We all remember the first go-round, where the Court voted 5-4 to uphold the individual mandate on tax grounds. Then, there was rampant speculation--apparently confirmed from within the Court itself--that the Chief Justice had changed his conference vote, where he had initially sided with the dissenters to strike down the law. That was around the time the President began ma

Then there the RFRA challenge brought by the private, religious employers. And now Obamacare is again in serious jeopardy with this year's challenge to the federal subsidy provisions. 

The President campaigned vigorously in the press and public to get the law passed; to promote the law and the use of the healthcare exchanges; and later to defend the law from challenges in the Court. So far as I am aware, other presidents have not faced similar efforts by litigants to strike down their signature legislative accomplishments while the president was in office. 

Kansas Governor OK's Remarkable Invasion Of Judicial Branch

In an apparent act of retaliation against the Kansas Supreme Court for striking down an earlier law dealing with education, the Kansas legislature and Governor Sam Brownback have passed and signed a law funding the judicial branch but simultaneously threatening to defund the branch if it strikes down the funding law. And there is reason to think the courts might: The law purports to vest the authority to select chief district judges in the State's district judges themselves, not in the Kansas Supreme Court. The State constitution gives the supreme court "general administrative authority over all courts in this state."

According to NYT, critics of the law accuse the governor of attempting "to stack the district courts with judges who may be more favorable to his policies."

A threat to defund the entire judicial branch sounds like an unrealistic threat to me, but it's there nonetheless.