President Obama made it clear in his response to Citizens United that he thought the High Court had gotten it wrong. But with health care unfinished, joblessness climbing, immigration looming and a few wars ongoing, does he have the space and time to address the decision in tonight's speech? My thought is he has no choice. He has to make the time. To overlook this is to ignore what the Obama Presidency means for the American people.

And here's why:

1. Putting the people before the powerful. As President Obama reminded in his video address on Saturday, his Presidency is the most transparent in the history of the Office. Government should be run by the people, not the monied special interests. The Citizens United decision ignores over a century's worth of judicial precedent and legislation designed to prevent the corporate takeover of Washington. The American people elected Obama not least in part because he promised to keep their voice the loudest. He should use his speech tonight to remind the American people and the Congress that this can still be the case.

2. Keeping the focus on the struggles of everyday people. No matter how quickly the administration and Congress try to work, everyday people are still feeling the ill-effects of eight years of Bush's failed economic policy. As Simon and the NDN team have been arguing, the administration and Congress should make the struggle of everyday people their primary governing and rhetorical concern. The President has a big opportunity tonight to show the American people that the government is responding to their needs and is aware of the impact this decision has on their relationship with government.

3. Standing up to judicial activism at its worst. As a constitutional law scholar, President Obama understands the importance of an independent judiciary. Playing politics with the bench goes against the Founders' design for our three branches of government. President Obama should use tonight to make clear that when over a century of judicial precedent, years of congressional intent, debate and legislation, and public opinion supportive of regulating corporate money in politics all stack up against the decision, one must wonder: if not judicial activism, then what?

Bottom line: this decision represents the antithesis of the Obama philosophy of improvement through empowerment--the idea that government should empower everyday people with the tools to improve their own lives so that everyday people can influence the direction of their country. This was the premise of his campaign and, I believe, remains the rationale for his Presidency. To ignore the ramifications of the Supreme Court's judicial activism is to shy away from the very reason we elected this important and inspirational leader.