Perspectives: Obama's initial sharp comments on court were overbearing -- and so was appeals court response

The Washington Post: Disorder In The Court
I chided President Obama this week for his remarks on the Supreme Court and the role of "unelected" judges. The president, wisely, has since chosen to clarify his statement, and express his (correct) view -- that courts should be hesitant to overturn acts of Congress -- in a much more appropriate way. Now the problematic behavior is coming from the other branch, with a federal appeals court going out of it way to pick a fight with the president. Talk about judicial activism -- this is a judicial temper tantrum (Ruth Marcus, 5/4).

CNN (Video): Court's Obama Order A 'Hissy Fit'
The Fifth Circuit's homework assignment to the Department of Justice is a disgrace -- an embarrassment to the federal judiciary. Still, it's a useful window on the contemporary merger of law and politics. ... (Judge Jerry) Smith and his two colleagues -- all Republican appointees -- gave the Justice Department lawyers a homework assignment. They demanded a letter of "no less than three pages, single spaced," due on Thursday, explaining the president's remarks. This is not judging. This is a judicial hissy fit. The Supreme Court will determine the constitutionality of the health care law, and the president will, as he must, abide by that judgment whether he agrees with it or not. In the meantime, however, the president, like all Americans, enjoys the right to express himself on what the court should do in that or any other case (Jeffrey Toobin, 4/5).

The Wall Street Journal: Obama's Base Play
One theory is that (Obama is) trying to intimidate the justices into deciding the case his way. But if that's his aim, it would be odd to wait until after they've heard the case -- and, it is believed, after they've privately voted on it -- to begin the campaign. Moreover, while we'd say a politician's trash talk is unlikely to have any effect on the justices at all, the odds that it would influence them in his favor are surely minuscule. Judges jealously guard their independence, as the Fifth Circuit demonstrated yesterday. They're right to do so (James Taranto, 4/4).

The Wall Street Journal: The Supreme Court Lands In Oz
Many are saying the president should know Marbury v. Madison. He does. It doesn't matter. If something gets in his way, Barack Obama hammers it -- whether courts or Congress. The left likes that. It remains to find out if the rest of the country wants the judicial and legislative branches subordinated to a national leader (Daniel Henninger, 4/4). 

New England Journal of Medicine: Supreme Court Arguments On The ACA -- A Clash of Two World Views
Many legal scholars (including me) believed that this would be an easy case, because health insurance so obviously involves interstate commerce and the mandate is unquestionably central to many of the ACA's core unchallenged provisions. But these matters can be seen differently, as witnessed by the deep split among the lower courts.  ... [W]hen the Court confronts novel questions of constitutional principle, each justice's worldview understandably shapes his or her framing of the issues. Either way, it's remarkable how sharply these worldviews differ on the fundamental questions of health policy underlying the ACA (Mark A. Hall, 4/4).