On Alito's State of the Union head wag, you're all wrong

You're all wrong. And I mean those of you who claim that Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s "not true" during the State of the Union Wednesday night constitutes a "Joe Wilson moment."
And I'm also talking about those of you who argue that the president was out of line with his in-your-face (almost literally) criticism of the Supreme Court's decision last week that wiped away long-standing prohibitions against certain types of corporate political expenditures.
Salon.com blogger Glenn Greenwald is the most off-base when he argues that Alito's behavior is worse -- that's right, worse -- than the "you lie" outburst of South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson during the president's address to a joint session of Congress last year. Wilson's shocking breach of decorum interrupted the president mid-sentence and was clearly heard by most people in the chamber and watching on TV. Remember the death-ray glare shot by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi?
Contrast that with Alito's head shake and his mouthing of what appeared to be "not true" when Obama asserted that the Supreme Court had wiped away "a century of law" that "will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections." No one except those sitting immediately behind Alito likely would have been aware of the justice's response had TV cameras not focused on him at that moment. (So much for cameras in the courtroom!)

Greenwald gives Wilson some slack because he's a politician and is expected to engage in the rough and tumble world of politics; by "flamboyantly insinuating himself into a pure political event, in a highly politicized manner," Greenwald says, Alito has damaged his credibility and that of the court.
Should Alito have refrained from even this modest display? Yes. Should he have been savvy enough to know that cameras would turn to the justices when the president addressed the recent decision? Absolutely. But does this lapse, as Greenwald argues, amount to "a serious and substantive breach of protocol" and prove that Alito is a "politicized and intemperate Republican" partisan? Of course not -- except in the eyes of those so hopelessly stuck in their partisanship that a sneeze would have been interpreted as "blowing off" the president.
I don't know which part of the president's explanation Alito was objecting to, but as Linda Greenhouse rightly notes in The New York Times, the president was less than precise in his description the decision. It did not, as the president asserted, throw out a century's worth of precedent, and it did not disturb a law on the books since the early 1900's that prohibits corporations from directly contributing to a candidate's coffers. It's at least plausible -- I'd say probable -- that Alito wasn't expressing partisan rancor as much as intellectual disagreement with how the president characterized the opinion.
Nevertheless, the president was well within his rights to refer to and slam a decision he believes -- and I agree -- could further corrode and corrupt politics by giving more opportunity to corporate and union behemoths. I'm sure it wasn't the most pleasant moment for the Supreme Court justices who voted to strike down the campaign finance regulations, but I strongly disagree with Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett -- with whom I often agree -- when he writes that the president engaged in a "truly shocking lack of decorum and disrespect towards the Supreme Court for which an apology is in order." An apology? I don't think so.
Obama expressed disagreement and outrage with the decision when it was issued. What the justices and the country heard on Wednesday night was nothing new. I also did not hear the president call for Congress or the states to disregard the case; I heard him challenging his base to come up with other legislative approaches to address concerns about the corrupting influence of big money in the political system. And guess what? The justices would ultimately have the last word on whether this new plan would pass constitutional muster.