Two Republican senators on Wednesday called on President Obama to stop attacking the Supreme Court, lending support to Chief Justice John Roberts, who took umbrage at the president's criticism of the court's controversial campaign finance decision during his State of the Union address. 

Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch told Fox News that he agrees with Roberts, who said Tuesday that Obama's address was "very troubling" and that the annual State of the Union speech has "degenerated into a political pep rally."

"Look, it was a political pep rally," Hatch said. "I guess I'm tired of it myself, just bouncing up and down at whatever strikes you as interesting.

"But the president was wrong on the law, he was wrong on the facts and I thought it was unseemly for him to criticize the Supreme Court while they're sitting there," he said.

"I don't blame them if they never come back to another State of the Union," he said of the nine justices, "because they're a separate branch of government. They're not there to be lectured to by the president of the United States."

With six of the justices seated before him in their black robes, Obama scolded the court during his January address for its 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission that government limits on corporate-funded, independent political broadcasts during elections constituted a violation of free speech.

"I was disappointed and dismayed to hear the president of the United States mischaracterize the decision of the Supreme Court and scold the members of the court in his State of the Union address for something they didn't do," Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday.

"If you're going to challenge the Supreme Court in a setting where they have no opportunity to respond or defend themselves, you ought to be absolutely accurate in your criticism," he said.

Speaking at the University of Alabama on Tuesday, Roberts said he wonders whether justices should attend the address.

"To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we're there," said Roberts, who was nominated to the court by President George W. Bush and approved by the Senate in 2005.

Roberts said anyone is free to criticize the court and that some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.

"So I have no problems with that," he said. "On the other hand, 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."

In response to Roberts' remarks on Wednesday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs focused on the court's ruling and not on the chief justice's point about the time and place for criticism of the court.

"What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections -- drowning out the voices of average Americans," Gibbs said. "The president has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response."

Hatch said Gibbs' response didn't surprise him.

"Well, what do you expect Robert Gibbs to do? He's the chief apologist for the president," he said. "I don't blame him for that. I think it's stupid the way he stood by him on this issue."

Rep. John Boccieri, D-Ohio, who has introduced legislation to counter the the campaign finance ruling, said Roberts may have felt uncomfortable at the address "because he knew the court's recent decision turned over the keys of electoral politics to big corporations and unions."

"It's as if the Supreme Court rolled up to the drive thru and super-sized the campaign contributions of big corporations," he said in a written statement. "If the justices felt uncomfortable in the people's House, they should understand that the people of our country are uncomfortable with their decision. "People want less money in politics, not more."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.