Polling shows record-low confidence in Supreme Court

[RileyHawk]

A new poll from Gallup has found confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court has reached a record low as the branch’s conservative majority continues to pass down controversial rulings.
In a survey released Thursday afternoon, Gallup found that only 25% of Americans have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the Supreme Court.

Biden's numbers looking pretty good by comparison. LOL

https://www.yahoo.com/news/polling-shows-record-low-confidence-in-supreme-court-210643021.html

 

[BioHawk]

This Supreme Court is a complete friggin joke. I would be embarrassed to be part of it. It is partisan and activist and legislating from the bench. None of their rulings can be taken seriously and outside of expanding the court, I don't see any way to fix it. Every issue we are experiencing right now can be traced back to a BS Supreme Court decision. Not just these folks, but cases over the last 5 decades.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Thankfully the Supreme Court doesn't rule based on polling.

 

[Chishawk1425]

Illegitimate Kangaroo court

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

This Supreme Court is a complete friggin joke. I would be embarrassed to be part of it. It is partisan and activist and legislating from the bench. None of their rulings can be taken seriously and outside of expanding the court, I don't see any way to fix it. Every issue we are experiencing right now can be traced back to a BS Supreme Court decision. Not just these folks, but cases over the last 5 decades.

Yet another supporter of expanding the court. In 50 years we will have 83 judges and counting.

 

[Chishawk1425]

Yet another supporter of expanding the court. In 50 years we will have 83 judges and counting.

Based on prior expansion history we should have 13 right now. The GQP stacked the court with what they did in 2016 and 2020. Period. You aren't credible if you don't acknowledge this.

 

[pjhawk]

This Supreme Court is a complete friggin joke. I would be embarrassed to be part of it. It is partisan and activist and legislating from the bench. None of their rulings can be taken seriously and outside of expanding the court, I don't see any way to fix it. Every issue we are experiencing right now can be traced back to a BS Supreme Court decision. Not just these folks, but cases over the last 5 decades.

This really can't stand. They're making obvious political decisions that aren't based on any kind of consistent judicial philosophy or reasoning, they're explicitly doing the "legislating from the bench" that the conservatives pretended they abhorred for decades and decades.

We're probably at the point where nullification has to be an option, 6 unelected judges, several with dubious legitimacy because of the way they were placed on the court can't determine the political direction of the country against the wishes of the vast majority of the population.

 

[BeepBeepInMyJeep]

Yet another supporter of expanding the court. In 50 years we will have 83 judges and counting.

That’s the point. By making a single vacancy nearly irrelevant and barely newsworthy, it eliminates all the drama of the past several years surrounding vacancies. And let’s be real, it’s only a matter of time before one gets shot. They’ve basically had 200+ years of relative anonymity to this point and a little bit of just dumb luck. Then, talk about a real shit show.

Sure, things would sway through the years as each “side” swapped power back and forth, and they’d constantly contradict themselves. That’s what we have NOW

 

[State of Illinois]

Era of Projection. Screamed “activist judges” for decades while stacking the court to make it, essentially, an “activist court”.

 

[BioHawk]

Yet another supporter of expanding the court. In 50 years we will have 83 judges and counting.

There are 13 appellate courts. And with the current court and the decisions it is making, I would say the odds of a Supreme Court no longer existing in 50 years is far larger than 83 judges.

 

[pjhawk]

Era of Projection. Screamed “activist judges” for decades while stacking the court to make it, essentially, an “activist court”.

I think it's beyond even that. It's dictatorship from the bench. And they're not even making any real attempt to disguise that these are purely political decisions. They're currently in the process of eviscerating the regulatory state, which has gone under-the-radar because of these other high profile decisions (abortion, guns).

 

[State of Illinois]

I think it's beyond even that. It's dictatorship from the bench. And they're not even making any real attempt to disguise that these are purely political decisions. They're currently in the process of eviscerating the regulatory state, which has gone under-the-radar because of these other high profile decisions (abortion, guns).

I’ve always said that the abortion “issue” is a massive ruse.

 

[anon_b29nm7v7dwp6r]

Not surprised most Americans feel this way now….the Supreme Court has easily become the most screwed up arm of our government and that’s saying something. They have become kings and queens ruling from the bench who answer to no one….NOBODY in our government should have a lifetime appointment.

Either give them term limits of 10-15 years….or make the positions elected….or frankly disband the whole thing.
It’s pathetic….and then they try to hide behind the honor and integrity of the court like Clarence Thomas’s comments…..y’all are the reason no one respects the court anymore….

 

[lucas80]

Thankfully the Supreme Court doesn't rule based on polling.

Nobody is saying they should base decisions on polling. However, their legitimacy is tied to being in step with the public. This court is rapidly showing that it is not.
And, the actions of Chuck and Mitch to keep Merrick Garland off the court, and to jam ACB onto the court four years later have horribly politicized the court.

 

[Tom Paris]

Yet another supporter of expanding the court. In 50 years we will have 83 judges and counting.

Perfect. I love it. Give us 50 lib and 50 conservative justices. People will think twice bringing crap to the SC because if they randomly assign judges plaintiffs won't know who they'll get. Precedence won't be overturned like this radical court is doing. The more the merrier, I say.

 

[bhawk24bob]

Seeing as these are lifetime appointments, which is a separate matter that should be addressed, we might be starting at another 10-15 years minimum of the absurd rulings that are demonstrably bad for the country and move it backwards. They're going to have an effect of rendering the rule of law ignored as the country views the Court as obsolete

I appreciate the lack of shame that Thomas had in throwing a tantrum about somebody leaking the Roe ruling when he's blatantly playing politiics

 

[Colonoscopy]

This really can't stand. They're making obvious political decisions that aren't based on any kind of consistent judicial philosophy or reasoning, they're explicitly doing the "legislating from the bench" that the conservatives pretended they abhorred for decades and decades.

We're probably at the point where nullification has to be an option, 6 unelected judges, several with dubious legitimacy because of the way they were placed on the court can't determine the political direction of the country against the wishes of the vast majority of the population.

Yeah, I agree with the first paragraph. GOP in general is activist as-**** right now.

The problem I have is how do you deal with the response of: "well, we're just doing what you guys did, so stop whining."

I suppose you could argue that the ideal dynamic should be that cons are the stodgy gatekeepers of what is and necessarily must play it strictly by the book. Whereas libs are the generators of change and aren't so bound by the book so much as "how it ought to be."

Of course there is the actual quality of reasoning by the GOP judges... like... even "activist" judges need to have X amount of consistency where adherence to a judicial philosophy is concerned. Maybe these GOP "activist" judges aren't even hitting that threshold. (unlike lefty "activist" judges of the past)

That's where I'm not so clear. More activist and more political -- everything is moving that way, to be fair, the SCOTUS, unfortunately, no different -- I agree with.

Also: I think your dubious legitimacy argument falls flat. Because ultimately everything McConnell did seemed to have good precedence -- unless you're to argue that he violated the shared understanding of how everyone thought things should be handled *now*. (of course some of his arguments employed did make him a hypocrite, but that doesn't wipe out the precedence you could still point to)

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Nobody is saying they should base decisions on polling. However, their legitimacy is tied to being in step with the public. This court is rapidly showing that it is not.
And, the actions of Chuck and Mitch to keep Merrick Garland off the court, and to jam ACB onto the court four years later have horribly politicized the court.

In step with the public? That's the same thing as polling.

In step with the law is the correct answer. If the public doesn't like the law, then elect legislators to change the law.

 

[Aardvark86]

Based on prior expansion history we should have 13 right now. The GQP stacked the court with what they did in 2016 and 2020. Period. You aren't credible if you don't acknowledge this.

Just for fun now do the House of Representatives.

 

[State of Illinois]

In step with the public? That's the same thing as polling.

In step with the law is the correct answer. If the public doesn't like the law, then elect legislators to change the law.

You think you just argued against his point. You didn’t. You just supported it. And I bet you have no idea how.

 

[Tenacious E]

There are 13 appellate courts. And with the current court and the decisions it is making, I would say the odds of a Supreme Court no longer existing in 50 years is far larger than 83 judges.

Wut?

 

[Aardvark86]

Wut?

That would be a neat trick given that it is the only court actually proscribed by the constitution.

 

[RileyHawk]

I'm an advocate of expanding the court to 13 with cases being assigned randomly to help overcome the obvious partisanship. Likewise, age limits. I would say 75 years old. That will provide longevity and consistency while also ensuring there is some regular turnover.

Also, eliminating the ability for one person to determine whether a nominee will be allowed to go through the confirmation process has to happen. That, more than anything, has caused the issues we're discussing here.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

That would be a neat trick given that it is the only court actually proscribed by the constitution.

More likely that Congress at some point strips the Court from reviewing certain types of cases.

 

[Slappy Pappy]

That would be a neat trick given that it is the only court actually proscribed by the constitution.

But not to do what they are doing. The SC *gave themselves* the power of judicial review in 1806. Running around pulling up whatever law they want to declare unconstitutional is, frankly, unconstitutional.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

A new poll from Gallup has found confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court has reached a record low as the branch’s conservative majority continues to pass down controversial rulings.
In a survey released Thursday afternoon, Gallup found that only 25% of Americans have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the Supreme Court.

Biden's numbers looking pretty good by comparison. LOL

https://www.yahoo.com/news/polling-shows-record-low-confidence-in-supreme-court-210643021.html

Looking at the Gallup poll the numbers shake out like this
'
Great deal of confidence 11%
Quite a lot of confidence 14%
Some confidence 43%
Very little confidence 30%
No confidence 1%
No opinion 1

Kind of puts a different spin on it if you include the bolded....



By contrast....Gallup presidential polling goes like this

June 22

Approve 41%
Disapprove 57%
No Opinion 3%

Presidential Approval Ratings -- Joe Biden

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Joe Biden is handling his job as president?

news.gallup.com

Really can't compare Biden's polling with the Supreme Court as the questions aren't even the same....

 

[Tom Paris]

Just for fun now do the House of Representatives.

Yeah, Republican gerrymandering and stealing seats there is terrible too.

 

[Tenacious E]

But not to do what they are doing. The SC *gave themselves* the power of judicial review in 1806. Running around pulling up whatever law they want to declare unconstitutional is, frankly, unconstitutional.

Looky here we have a constitutional scholar walking among us!

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Yeah, Republican gerrymandering and stealing seats there is terrible too.

How Democrats learned to stop worrying and love the gerrymander

Republicans tilted the House map. Democrats are clawing their way back.

www.vox.com

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Yet another supporter of expanding the court. In 50 years we will have 83 judges and counting.

I'm good with that.

 

[DavidGraeberBullSheetJobs]

The problem is the constitution. Until it is rewritten we will not have anything close to a functioning sustainable democracy in this country, and we probably won’t even have a country that resembles the current 50 states. Already in 2009, after the Edward Snowden leaks, Jimmy Carter came out and said “we no longer have a functioning democracy“, and he couldn’t have possibly imagined the rise of Trump and fascism and an attempted coup d’état.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

How Democrats learned to stop worrying and love the gerrymander

Republicans tilted the House map. Democrats are clawing their way back.

www.vox.com

should dems not fight fire with fire?

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

should dems not fight fire with fire?

Of course they should....

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Yet another supporter of expanding the court. In 50 years we will have 83 judges and counting.

How? Surely the repubs and you would not support the repubs expanding when they have the ability to do so, right? I mean you and repubs are against expanding the court, right?

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

How? Surely the repubs and you would not support the repubs expanding when they have the ability to do so, right? I mean you and repubs are against expanding the court, right?

The only folks that have been talking about expanding the courts are the Dems...

 

[Finance85]

I'm not surprised. People get their opinions from guest commentators on cable news, bloggers, and tweeters, and never try to understand actual rulings. There are quite a few posters here who have strong opinions without any good basis.

 

[Aardvark86]

But not to do what they are doing. The SC *gave themselves* the power of judicial review in 1806. Running around pulling up whatever law they want to declare unconstitutional is, frankly, unconstitutional.

hahahahahaha. I have to say, I honestly don't think I've ever heard of anybody in my entire life advocating for Marbury v. Madison to be overruled.

Oh, and Brown v. Board of Education says hi.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

The only folks that have been talking about expanding the courts are the Dems...

Why would the dems raise to 83 as posted? We would only need to add maybe 3 or 4 to be safe.

 

[Aardvark86]

Yeah, Republican gerrymandering and stealing seats there is terrible too.

no seriously, i'm actually wondering how big the house would be under current standards. I mean, if we want to democratize our institutions more, why not the one that's actually supposed to be democractically representative?

 

[Aardvark86]

I'm an advocate of expanding the court to 13 with cases being assigned randomly to help overcome the obvious partisanship. Likewise, age limits. I would say 75 years old. That will provide longevity and consistency while also ensuring there is some regular turnover.

Also, eliminating the ability for one person to determine whether a nominee will be allowed to go through the confirmation process has to happen. That, more than anything, has caused the issues we're discussing here.

You know, there's some appeal to that "panel" approach, but even in our courts of appeals, panel decisions are subject to en banc review to avoid the issues that arise from random generation of a panel that is clearly out to lunch. If you're going to have that feature (and maybe you're not), you haven't really added much. having cases decided by the same group of judges does increase the consistency of decisionmaking on the whole. Imagine, for example, a case being decided by a random panel of Kagan, Soto, and Jackson, and then the next similar case is addressed by a random panel of Alito/Thomas/Kav. or vice versa.