By a fairly humongous margin, public disapproval of the U.S. Supreme Court has risen to the highest point in the 30 years Hart Research has been polling on that question.
The change seems to have been driven substantially by the Dobbs ruling that overturned the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion which had been in place since 1973.
As recently as January of 2021, the percentage of respondents who said they had a negative view of the court was just 19%. That rocketed up to 42% when the question was asked again this month.
The percentage who described their view of the court as positive fell from 44% to 35% and the portion whose view was “neutral” also fell, from 35% to 22%. In short, all of the movement was toward the negative view.
This Meet the Press/First Read story headlined “Public’s opinion of Supreme Court plummets after abortion decision” has a few more details.
Supreme Court justices, of course, don’t have to worry about reelection since they serve lifetime terms.
Then by all means let’s have courts rule by opinion polling. Sounds great.
Um, it was extreme rightwing populist dissatisfaction with the landmark rulings of the Warren Court which launched today’s “conservative” movement in the 1960s and which politicized the court. So let’s not forget our history, Clarence.
Apparently the court disagrees with you. From the link:
“Chief Justice John Roberts has stressed the importance of the public’s trust and the dangers of inappropriate political influence.
And Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the Supreme Court wouldn’t survive the “stench” of overturning Roe v. Wade.”
“No matter whether th’ constitution follows th’ flag or not, th’ supreme coort follows th’ iliction returns.”
The Supreme Court depends for its legitimacy on the perception of the public. The Court has no coercive authority of its own, so the only force behind its decisions is the willingness of the public and public officials to acquiesce in those decisions. If those decisions are increasingly viewed as illegitimate and the product of partisan agendas, how much longer will the Court’s authority be acknowledged without question (as Andrew Jackson didn’t say, ““John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it”)?
Well, Mr. Lincoln is correct. The illegitimacy of the present Supreme Court (and going back, frankly, to the 1980’s) is not that its decisions fail to conform to public polling, it’s that it decides cases on the basis of ideology, to serve the interests of concentrated private power, and papers over its motives with a theory of Constitutional adjudication that is risible nonsense to anyone who takes seriously the question of how a Constitution guides a democracy. A legitimate Supreme Court would not reason to conform to public polling, but would gain public support by its reasoning. At least that part of the public that, as well, takes democracy and liberty seriously.
It’s very encouraging that the attitude of many citizens toward this democratically-illegitimate Repub Supreme Court is turning more and more negative. That is an essential step towards expanding the size of the Court to negate the effect of the three Trump justices, which is what must be done if the nation is to survive the current anti-democratic MAGA movement (which Biden recently characterized as “quasi-fascist”). If only this portended the commencement of an actual rhetorical campaign by Dems against this intellectually corrupt court.
What’s frustrating is why and how the Repub Supreme Court could have ever risen in the public’s estimation after its openly lawless and partisan decision in Bush v Gore, where 22 years ago it bent over backwards to force the first popular vote-losing president onto the nation in 120 years. An electoral college president who also was ultimately responsible for augmenting the Repub Supreme Court with 2 (of the current 6) far-right judicial extremists. Never forget the REAL Stolen Election (of 2000)!
Yes, the Court now consists of 6 constitutionalists and 3 potted plants. The Left will never get their way, now.
Do you remember that the entire point of EB’s little article here is that the rulings of the 6 “constitutionalists” (whatever that is supposed to mean) are exceedingly unpopular, and that the Repub Supreme Court is now viewed more negatively by the public than in the past 30 years?
So much for the “unpopularity” of the (opposing) opinions of the “potted plants” (again, whatever that is supposed to mean.) But it is instructive that what really seems to motivate today’s rightists (including you) is that “the Left will never get their way”…
Ad Hominem is the last refuge of scoundrels.
““constitutionalists” (whatever that is supposed to mean)”
It means whatever they want it to mean; not unlike how people selectively follow scripture.
Prepare for major disappointment. The McConnell / McCarthy do nothing and wait as described here:
https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2022/08/mid-term-victory-for-the-do-nothing-party/
Is rapidly failing and a Senate with the filibuster as a non-entity and a Pelosi led House will undo 50 years of right wing SCOTUS scheming:
1. A federal law enabling choice
2. Gun safety that will drive the right to distraction
3. Voting rights through the John Lewis Act and SR1 and HR1
And that’s just getting started…
Six constitutionalists? Four of them – Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barrett – lied under oath during their Senate confirmation hearings. One of them – Coney-Barrett – has the judicial qualifications of a traffic court judge and is an apparent cult member. Another is an accused rapist. Then there’s Thomas, whose wife was involved in attempting to overthrow the US Government. But yes, let’s talk about how they’re all constitutionalists.
Interesting comment regarding Bush v Gore when every recount ever done always sided with Bush.
Then again, Mr. Black is always throwing stones from his glass house.
The after-the-fact “recounts” by newspaper groups depended upon the standard used in evaluating the disputed over and undervotes, and since the Repub Supreme Court stopped the official recount that was being overseen by the FL state courts, it’s very unclear what “recount” you are even referring to. That was the point of Bush v. Gore.
But if you actually cared about the democratically legitimate result, the faulty ballot design in West Palm Beach caused about 2000+ Gore votes to be wrongly registered for Buchanan. So there is simply no doubt that more Floridians had attempted to vote for Gore than Bush in 2000.
And in any event, my main point is that Bush lost the popular vote by half a million in 2000, which is not remotely in dispute.
As Bruce Peterson points out elsewhere on this page, “Then there is federalism. Now at the state level the referendum process, starting with Kansas, may better legitimize abortion law by letting voters, rather than judges or political partisans, decide the matter for themselves.”
It’s amusing and instructive that the people who named their party after democracy, would prefer the latter. Why am I not surprised?
If you’d like, you can now read my response to Judge Peterson on that very point.
Better not go down the democracy route: Not good for your ideas. From Axios:
“Driving the news: In Kansas, the Democratic-controlled state supreme court recognized the right to abortion, prompting the Republican-controlled legislature to ask voters to effectively veto that decision.
But voters instead supported keeping that right protected, giving hope to progressives after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
Between the lines: In Texas, the elected, all-Republican state supreme court will never go that route — so the GOP-controlled legislature, which has ratcheted down abortion access, will not have to resort to an appeal to voters.
Amendments to the Texas Constitution can be put before voters only after being approved by two-thirds of each body of the legislature, Texas Secretary of State spokesperson Sam Taylor tells Axios.”
So, in Texas a majority of voters support a women’s right to choose and the chances that this would be put to a referendum to be decided by the people is ZERO.
Exactly. Which is why Alito’s smug appeal to “democracy” in his disgusting and sadistic Dobbs opinion was so intellectually dishonest.
Regardless of my views on mob rule, I was suggesting that the other side should be elated that they get to, you know, choose, at the state level, but they rioted in the streets in support of the autocracy of the federal bench. That’s all so fascist of them.
“[T]hey rioted in the streets in support of the autocracy of the federal bench.”
Who rioted? Or are you calling peaceful protests “riots?”
Dennis’ posts always remind me of:
Bluto: What? Over? Did you say ‘over’? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!…
He did get elected to the Senate though…
But the Constitution still rules.
Well when you become the Supreme Corruption of the United States, no mystery here, just an extension of the ultra right wing polices of the (we want to rule, not govern, no matter what it takes) republican party. Especially now that fascism is fashionable, they have to support the corrupt politicians that put them in charge of interpreting the laws according to those fascist rules.
Might have something to do with the politicization of the Court since the Federalist Society loaded it with political activists.
Let’s see the people don’t trust the Supreme Court, don’t trust Congress, don’t trust Biden, don’t trust FBI, dont trust the media, don’t trust politicians in general. There is a reason for that mistrust, they have gotten too powerful and mislead the public steady. I am amazed that the CDC and NIH were able to tell Americans that 2 shots and a booster would stop you from getting or giving COViD, knowing that wasn’t the case. People should have been fired on the spot.
All of the mistrust has been earned, that is for certain!
Not to get off topic but: “I am amazed that the CDC and NIH were able to tell Americans that 2 shots and a booster would stop you from getting or giving COViD, knowing that wasn’t the case. People should have been fired on the spot.”
How come everything I heard/read/was advised at the clinic, the shots would help reduce the effects if you got COVID, the idea was to keep folks out of the ICU’s, I never heard stop (from those folks). So who is mis-informed or pumping mis-information, Joe or Dennis? If doing it on this, what should make folks think it isn’t being done on everything else?
Yes, ‘”Joe”, there is no doubt that the disastrous “conservative” movement has caused massive distrust and dissatisfaction with many institutions of US government. That was the goal of the movement all along, and it has succeeded handsomely.
And of course the CDC never made any such promises about the Covid vaccine. That is entirely your willful and unscientific misunderstanding.
There’s a strong correlation between rate of Covid deaths and hospitalization and vaccinations and boosters.
I guess if it weren’t for OAN and NewsMax you would have no one to trust.
Living in a fantasy world where perfect decisions lead to perfect conclusions is maybe a tad bit optimistic. The 2 shots and a booster has proven to be a better outcome than fish tank cleaner, bleach, bright light and horse dewormer.
The primary fault lies with the American right where folks will never trust anyone that does not agree with them the vast majority of the time. Example: Robert Mueller and James Comey are long time Republicans. FBI Rank and file, until Trump came along were thought of as a pretty conservative, straight laced, non-smiling bunch of serious cops. Now they are not to be trusted! Why? Because they told Trump things he did not want to hear. They would not just agree with him and therefore they are not to be trusted.
Maybe, just maybe, the right needs to come to grip with uncomfortable truths and abandon their perpetual state of denial.
Never better illustrated than by our current Secretary of State race:
“As of two weeks ago, Simon said, there had been 16 proven cases of voter misconduct among 3.3 million eligible voters in Minnesota since the 2020 election — and some of those were unsuccessful.”
That would be .0005% of the vote. Seems pretty good to me. And given the opportunities to challenge these results within our courts, this is a pretty valid number.
Seems folks should be happy with doing anything right 99.9995% of the time. Maybe even take a little pride in it.
But NO! Just listen to the Republican candidate who thinks this needs major fixing:
“Crockett’s push to impose tighter voting laws stems from her belief that the 2020 election was “rigged” in Minnesota, a falsehood that has no evidence supporting it. Her charge follows the same line used by former President Donald Trump about the national presidential election, even though that assertion by Trump has been repeatedly disproven.
“Even if everything is on the up-and-up, people are looking at [election results] and saying, ‘I don’t believe it anymore,'” said Crockett, an attorney. “It’s tearing apart families and it’s tearing apart our country. It has to stop, and the only way to do that is to look at our election laws and say, ‘Where are we leaking confidence?'”
We are “leaking confidence” because you did not get your way and like our childish former President, truth is a meaningless concept if you don’t get your way. The GOP needs to replace the Elephant logo with a toddler in diapers screaming and whining when they don’t get their way.
We are “leaking confidence” because Trumpers like Crockett believe (and tell other credulous white people) that votes in urban areas should not be counted because urban communities naturally engage in “fraud”. The only reliable vote is a rural, exurban or suburban vote.
That’s real democracy, and would immediately restore “confidence”!
Exactly!
Crockett is the worst of the worst: Even the CAE fired her for being too extreme and now she is a GOP candidate for a statewide office?
Good old Mitch McConnell when asked about the increasing concern of the electorate for democracy issues replied he sees no problem with how we run our elections and having confidence in the results. Organizing and executing a 2 car parade is a major challenge for the GOP these days…
Your overly-ground axe about COVID has absolutely nothing to do with this article, or with the Supreme Court generally.
If, in writing and passing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Congress and the President had included language taking away jurisdiction from SCOTUS over federal enforcement of the act; we might have maintained a more representative government. We could have avoided Shelby County v. Holder (2013).
If SCOTUS had done what conservatives always say the Court is supposed to do and defer to Congress in the exercise of its constitutional mandate, we would have avoided Shelby County.
The reality is that the Repub Supreme Court of the 21st Century is the most “judicially activist” in history, especially as it relates to federal statutes. This is never reported.
And with decisions like Dobbs, it may be the most reactionary one, too.
Shelby County is an especially egregious example of their activism. Add to that the flagrant disregard for the bedrock principle of stare decisis, and you have a SCOTUS that has lost all right to be called a neutral arbiter of the law.
Amazingly many here can’t accept the FACT that CDC and NIH officials said that “if you got 2 shots plus a booster, you could NOT get or give COViD “ . That is why folks don’t trust them or the Congress, or politicians, or the President. I am not surprised that folks don’t trust huge Government bureaucracies including the Supreme Court. DC is truly a swamp filled with untrustworthy folks from all walks of life and both parties.
Conservatives have understood this for years but it seems Lefties want to hold on to “the Government is here to help us”… Good luck with that boys and girls. They are interested in your tax dollars and their power, that is for certain.
“Amazingly many here can’t accept the FACT that CDC and NIH officials said that “if you got 2 shots plus a booster, you could NOT get or give COViD ”
Statements like this are often accompanied by a link to the official government document that says this. Lacking that, it’s just more fake news.
Edward, April 2, 2021 Walensky walks back vaccine will prevent you from getting the virus. August 2, 2021 she clarifies that vaccinated people give and get COViD. As a said, my favorite thing is Lefties sticking with the narrative even after it changes.
Edward Blaise’s comment was about providing links to those comments. Which you did not provide in your reply. I’m still waiting.
No doubt there are examples of health officials misstating in public appearances that vaccination will prevent one from getting cOVID-19 or perhaps transmitting it. I doubt you can find any example of that on any of the official websites of those health agencies or in any of their published statements. The message I received from Day 1 which has been consistent throughout the COVID-19 pandemic up to and including today is that 1) masks are an effective, if not foolproof way of avoiding contracting COVID-19 which still leaves anyone at risk for contracting the disease when mingling with closely crowded groups of people for extended periods of time. 2) When vaccinations became available in 2020, the message was that vaccination significantly reduced the risk of getting and transmitting COVID-19 but added the caveat that vaccination did not guarantee not getting it at all. The messages have also been consistent is that also wearing a mask in public or in any group of people plus the vaccinations were the best way of minimizing, not eliminating any risk of contracting or carrying COVID-19.
Wearing masks and getting vaccinated against COVID-19 did not become a political issue until the MAGA/QAnon (now apparently having merged) crowd decided COVID-19 pandemic was another “hoax” perpetrated by the “Left” so that wearing a mask or getting vaccinated became a form of political statement expressing one’ “freedom.” The scientific facts remain unchanged despite what Leader Jensen says. Washing your hands before handling food or performing surgery on patients reduces the risk of infections or transmitting diseases and getting a vaccination and wearing a mask reduces the risk of getting and transmitting COVID-19 (and other diseases as well.) Those who’ve refused to do either or both have helped sustain and spread COVID-19. They are in no position to complain about the “narrative” when it wouldn’t have made any difference to them or those who believe them.
So in other words, after several months she clarified (your word!) a misstatement, and made the Agency’s position clear. Yeah a real “changed narrative” there! As though the prior statement is some fraud perpetrated on the populace, when the vaccines plainly successfully reduce the severity of all variants of covid for almost every person.
And you think this some irrefutable evidence of agency and scientific incompetence, causing widespread “distrust” in the populace. Well, in people who were hostile to all efforts to control the pandemic, anyway. In more reasonable ones, not so much.
Your argument is basically silly nitpicking, “Joe”. As though someone who got vaccinated would bitterly complain they were fundamentally misled, because they heard in April 2021 the vaccine was 100% effective in preventing all symptoms of covid. Why don’t you find some evidence of anyone saying that…
But she did NOT say that vaccines had no effect; just that the effect was not perfect.
Ha! Still no link provided.
That’s ok. I’ll help. Joe’s claim is an old one, and has been decisively debunked. Here are two fact check articles on this claim. You’re welcome, Joe! 🎈
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-cdc-vaccines/fact-check-cdc-director-did-not-confess-that-vaccines-are-failing-idUSL1N2PB2WH
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-walensky-clips/fact-check-merged-clips-of-cdc-director-rochelle-walensky-discussing-vaccine-protection-from-severe-covid-19-are-missing-context-idUSL1N2PX1IZ
Eric writes: “The change seems to have been driven substantially by the Dobbs ruling that overturned the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion which had been in place since 1973.”
I agree but that change was really the tipping point of a collapse in the public’s respect for and trust in the Supreme Court. That loss of respect and collapse has been a long time in the making by members of the Supreme Court themselves with ample help from the right wing. The collapse of public trust in public opinion polls mirrors the loss of respect for the Court’s judgments. The Court itself recognizes that in its opinions where it has expressed the relationship between public respect and the “court’s absolute probity” and the overriding importance of “judicial integrity.” As Justice Kennedy who retired a few years ago wrote in a couple of decisions:
“Courts, in our system, elaborate principles of law in the course of resolving disputes. The power and the prerogative of a court to perform this function rest, in the end, upon the respect accorded to its judgments. The citizen’s respect for judgments depends in turn upon the issuing court’s absolute probity. Judicial integrity is, in consequence, a state interest of the highest order.”
The current court of six “constitutionalists” are all members or supporters of the right-wing Federalist Society. (Past yes but present who knows?) The last two or three were appointed and confirmed largely on the strength of their credentials in that regard. It’s no coincidence in my mind that the “corporate free speech” and “corporate religious freedom” cases have all been cases by right-wing “public interest law firms” (so-called) that are affiliated or associated with the Federalist Society. Some of these erstwhile Federalist members of the Supreme Court have from time to time signaled publicly (and maybe privately. Justice Thomas and his wife Ginny probably know) that they will join in accepting petitions for certiorari on certain issues that just happen to be the same issues being advanced by attorney members of the Federalist Society. As Justice Alito did so in a union dues case a few years ago which helped bring about the Janus case that overruled a decades old decision granting public unions the right to collect dues from nonmembers. With six members, they get to decide which cases to accept or not accept. That means they get to shape the direction of legal precedent on important issues of constitutional and statutory interpretation pretty much in secret.
I think the public has been slowly been catching on. The Dobbs case and the other case overturning EPA regulations of utility plant carbon dioxide emissions was all the proof the public needed to know that “this deck is stacked.” And not in favor of the Constitution.
Absolutely. And now one has not only an almost absolute right to have a home arsenal of weapons, one has an almost absolute right to be granted a license to carry around in public any weapon one can buy in the heavy weapons marketplace.
All counter to prior precedents that were decades old and overruled by this activist rightwing court.
I have been opposed to the Supreme Court since the health care decisions. My view is that the court’s opinions on the interpretation of statutes, particularly of their constitutionality, should be considered advisory only. And I think this court it put itself on a collision course with the executive branch that might make that happen.
“I have been opposed to the Supreme Court ”
It’s over Johnny! The Supreme Court needs to be abolished leaving only the Legislative and Executive branches of government. Get rid of the Legislative branch and we can have the Dictatorship that you deserve. Shees!