(This item was revised since it was originally posted.)

Chief Justice John Roberts is back in the news one week after Internet rumors of his imminent retirement proved greatly exaggerated.

This week, of course, he's made headlines for complaining about President Barack Obama picking on the Supreme Court during his State of the Union for the court's 5-to-4 decision in the Citizens United case which freed corporations from venerable limits that had restricted their political advertising.

As most news junkies know by now, Roberts told law students at the University of Alabama that it's not that he's opposed criticism of the Supreme Court; he isn't. But it was the venue that bothered him. His response to a student's question:

"On the other hand, as you said, 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. And it does cause you to think whether or not it makes sense for us to be there. To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we're there."

Maybe the Supreme Court is there because it represents one of the three co-equal branches of the federal government and the SOTU has become the one time every year that all three branches meet under one roof in a powerful symbol of the august majesty of the federal government. The symbolism of the top officials of the three branches meeting once a year would seem reason enough for justices to attend the SOTU. Their continued appearance would demonstrate they respect that symbolism.

 

Another point. Supreme Court justices seem to occupy a pretty rarefied atmosphere for the most part. When they appear in public, it's at their building where they are treated like demigods or its at a law school or conference, where they are similarly treated.

A SOTU where they are called out for a decision a president disagrees with is one of the rare times they are forced to face the music in public. Given that they have life-time appointments and are generally treated like the immortals on Mt. Olympus, is it really too much for them to have to stoically sit on their hands and stare impassively ahead while the president gets off a good applause line at their expense?

As Nina Totenberg reported on All Things Considered on Wednesday, other Supreme Courts have had to sit in the House chamber as a president took potshots at them.

An excerpt from the transcript of her report:

TOTENBERG: State of the Union criticism of a Supreme Court decision is nothing new. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Warren Harding, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, among others, all did it. In 1988, for instance, two years after the court reaffirmed its ban on school prayer, President Reagan noted that the Supreme Court and Congress both acknowledge God at the opening of their proceedings. And he called for a constitutional amendment to reverse the school prayer ruling.

In 1984, six months after the court reaffirmed its Roe v. Wade abortion ruling, and again four years later, Mr. Reagan was strongly critical.

President RONALD REAGAN: To those who say this violates a woman's right to control of her own body, can they deny that now medical evidence confirms the unborn child is a living human being entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

(Soundbite of applause)

Good gracious, when the SCOTUS during FDR's era repeatedly struck down New Deal legislation, Roosevelt tried to actually put more than nine justices on the court, his infamous and ultimately unsuccessful court packing scheme. Roosevelt didn't announce his court reorganization plan during a SOTU. But it was some serious presidential hardball, a brushback pitch that had Roosevelt's intended effect of getting the SCOTUS to see things more his way.

Compared with that, Obama merely threw a beanbag at the court.

At bottom, Roberts may have really misstepped by letting his opposition see that it's gotten under his skin, never a good idea in Washington.

A thicker hide might help the chief justice bear the slings and arrows of outrageous Washington politics if he ultimately decides to keep attending those pep rallies, I mean, SOTUs.