The Garden State has produced another variety of bad apple—apart from our friends on the Jersey Shore. This rotten fruit is U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., LAW ’75, who grew up in the suburbs of Trenton, N.J., and excelled in judiciary politics, constitutional law, and tanning while a student at Princeton and Yale Law School. Alito may lack Pauly D.’s buttered brown skin, The Situation’s abs, and Snooki’s—no, let’s face it, she lacks anything that could be mistaken for a positive attribute—but all share Italian-American heritage and a flair for creating media frenzy.

Alito made headlines last Tues., Jan. 26—not for a quick cameo, but for a shocking display during the State of the Union address. When Obama commented on the implication of foreign involvement in our elections created by the Court’s decision, Alito seemed to mouth: “That’s not true.”

It is traditional for the justices of the Supreme Court to neither applaud nor display disagreement during the President’s State of the Union address. Alito’s indiscretion underscores right-wing contempt for Obama, the same attitude revealed by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) when he infamously called the president a liar during a joint session of Congress last year.

Alito’s appointment was ostensibly in response to the “judicial activists”—read: liberal justices—on the court: John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and, until he retired to be replaced by Sonia Sotomayor, LAW ’79, David Souter—a liberal in conservative robes unwittingly appointed by Bush the Elder.

These “activists” adhere to a looser interpretation of the Constitution to protect rights not specifically enumerated therein, discerning constitutional rights based on the Framers’ intent and Court precedent. Additionally, liberal justices have often been criticized for relying on the rather broad language of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In contrast, Scalia and his conservative brethren have repeatedly revealed themselves to be “strict constructionists.” It was shocking, then, when Scalia, a classic strict constructionist, relied upon the Equal Protection Clause to lead the charge to prevent a recount of the votes in Fla. in the 2000 presidential race, thereby stealing the election for W. The opinion in Bush v. Gore has been universally criticized by serious legal scholars, of all stripes—yes, red, white, and green—because of the conservative justices’ illogical and philosophically inconsistent application of the Equal Protection Clause.

Our generation will pay for the eight years of Bush, ushered in by that legally indefensible decision, more dearly than Snooki paid for reconstructive plastic surgery after that nasty jab in the face.

Regrettably, this case was not the last instance in which a conservative court’s decision jeopardized the potency and wellbeing of our government. The Supreme Court’s recent decision to allow unlimited corporate and—by implication—union political contributions, has overturned decades of precedent and thrust the America political experience down an alien and perhaps dangerous road.

But what does this mean for Obama? The mistakes of Alito and Scalia are a reflection of the entire Court’s failure. I fear Obama will inherit both a perpetually polarized electorate and further entrenchment of the “corporate-ocracy” that now controls all three branches of our government.

It’s long past time for Obama to wake up and realize that compromise with the Right is as likely as compromise with Islamic extremists. There can be no common ground when the only path to victory is your adversary’s annihilation, and the GOP is so intent on pushing a purely conservative agenda, there isn’t even internal compromise—it threatens to purge impure conservatives. If either party can pack a punch like Ronnie can, politics as we know it may be in serious jeopardy.

Obama should follow the advice of Governor Ed Rendell (D-PA): “If we are going to go down, and I don’t think we are, let’s go down fighting for something we believe in.”

Obama has a choice to remain a member of the corporate-ocracy and enact policies that ensure Democrats will be the favorite of both corporate and union lobbyists. (I fear this is his inclination) Or he can hit the gym and fight for policies that will be transformational—as he promised during the campaign.

President Obama has set high but achievable expectations. Despite the unprofessionalism and bipartisanship within the Supreme Court, the greatest loss we could endure will not be policies forgone but instead the loss of an entire generation to cynicism.