pageok
pageok
pageok
High Approval Rating for the Supreme Court:

According to this recent Gallup poll, most Americans approve of the way the Supreme Court is doing its job. 61% of Americans approve, compared to 28% who disapprove. This approval rate is slightly higher than in the past few years, apparently because of more support from Democrats. Gallup also speculates that the lack of controversial decisions by the Court last year may have contributed to a high approval rating.

ruuffles (mail) (www):
Support from Democrats increased from 38% to 75%, whereas support from Republicans decreased from 65% to 49% during the 2008-2009 term. Yet this term didn't have a single liberal victory apart from Caperton, compared to 2008. Perhaps a reflection of expectations of the Roberts court?
9.11.2009 10:33am
rick.felt:
Isn't this just liberal love for Obama translating to esteem for branch of the government that people don't generally pay attention to until it does something ludicrous?
9.11.2009 10:39am
ruuffles (mail) (www):

Isn't this just liberal love for Obama translating to esteem for branch of the government that people don't generally pay attention to until it does something ludicrous?

That might explain increased Democratic support, but doesn't explain decreased Republican support.
9.11.2009 10:41am
Christopher Cooke (mail):
I wonder what percentage of the persons surveyed could identify or name a majority of the justices (not all 9, just 5). Probably a low percentage, is my guess.
9.11.2009 10:50am
rick.felt:
That might explain increased Democratic support, but doesn't explain decreased Republican support.

Of course it does. Same reason, opposite direction.
9.11.2009 11:02am
Smooth, Like a Rhapsody (mail):
If this poll is accurate, we are a nation of morons.
9.11.2009 11:15am
gullyborg (mail) (www):
Most people have no idea who is on the court, what the court does, or what the court is supposed to do. All most people know, or think the know, is that SCOTUS is supposed to represent some sort of ideal about a mythical amorphous concept called "justice." Asking an average American "do you like or dislike the Supreme Court?" is akin to asking "are you in favor of or against ice cream and puppy dogs?"

Democrat support probably is up because Obama just appointed Sotomayor. Republican support is down because the tea party movement is getting more conservatives involved and aware of how dangerous big government has become.
9.11.2009 11:34am
Angus:
I've seen a lot of growing anger on conservative blogs (mostly among commenters) that the Supreme Court won't take birther suits seriously. I wonder how much of that decline in support among Republicans comes from that?
9.11.2009 12:14pm
Constantin:
As of this poll in 2006, O'Connor had the highest name ID of any justice at 27%. Otherwise, only Thomas was above 20%.

I think gullyborg's comment about American's approving of justice in the abstract is about right.
9.11.2009 12:17pm
Tim Nuccio (mail) (www):

If this poll is accurate, we are a nation of morons.


I'll 2nd that. The current state of the Court is a sham compared to that of yesterday.


I've seen a lot of growing anger on conservative blogs (mostly among commenters) that the Supreme Court won't take birther suits seriously. I wonder how much of that decline in support among Republicans comes from that?


I don't know, but he rest of us will probably lose support for a Court that entertains such ridiculous claims.
9.11.2009 12:19pm
Constantin:
That's Americans, not American's. Yikes.
9.11.2009 12:41pm
Nunzio:
I wonder if applying the 2nd Amendment to the states would lower, raise, or have no effect on the public's approval.
9.11.2009 12:46pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):

If this poll is accurate, we are a nation of morons.


If it took you this long to discover that truth.....
9.11.2009 1:17pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
Nunzio:

I wonder if applying the 2nd Amendment to the states would lower, raise, or have no effect on the public's approval.


I dunno, but it will be interesting to see what the campaign finance reform case does to the numbers....
9.11.2009 1:18pm
Non:
Is that sarcasm, einhevr?
9.11.2009 1:49pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
Non:

Is that sarcasm, einhevr?


Partly. But I also think that CFR is a much more polarizing issue than second amendment incorporation is nation-wide. For example, I can't imagine Washington State democrats caring about second amendment incorporation at all since RKBA is in our state constitution more strongly than in the 2nd Amendment by any interpretation.

The thing is that there is a fundamental difference in how corporations are seen by the Left and the Right. The Left likes to see them as EVIL entities which cause corruption simply because they have MONEY. The Right likes to see them as the great foundation of our modern economy and puts faith in the market to regulate them more than in government.

But it doesn't stop there. I have watched some people on this forum and elsewhere call Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC an "extreme" position couched in "moderate" language. I personally have a very hard time understanding what makes WRtL an "extreme" position. So I think there is a segment of the population which will see any win for Citizens United as an extreme movement to the right by the court.

On the other hand, it is quite possible that approval for the Supreme Court has a lot to do with who is the President of the United States, so I could be wrong. It may be that nobody is paying attention to the court, but rather to the elections and election politics.
9.11.2009 2:09pm
SuperSkeptic:
The thing is that there is a fundamental difference in how corporations are seen by the Left and the Right. The Left likes to see them as EVIL entities which cause corruption simply because they have MONEY. The Right likes to see them as the great foundation of our modern economy and puts faith in the market to regulate them more than in government.

I agree with you on this point, but (and not to hijack the thread - uhgh, I hate saying that) shouldn't the relevant inquiry be what the CONSTITUTION, namely the First Amendment that is purportedly being applied, says about the matter? You and I are reading between the lines, but the Court is ostensibly applying "the law" - not their respective ideologies.
9.11.2009 2:15pm
Non:
Well the "extreme" nature of that is the longstanding tradition of democratic branch regulation of corporation financing (almost as long as corporations have been a significant part of our nation). But this is off topic.
9.11.2009 2:33pm
SuperSkeptic:
So I think there is a segment of the population which will see any win for Citizens United as an extreme movement to the right by the court.

As far as this observation is also correct, I think it also implies what is a common thought that liberty, here freedom of speech, and freedom from government control/criminalization is somehow an "extreme movement to the right."

I didn't realize I was a right-wing nut, but apparently I am to some because I do not want the government to lock me up for engaging in the political process at a time/place/manner that Congress disapproves...
9.11.2009 2:34pm
Mark N. (www):

As far as this observation is also correct, I think it also implies what is a common thought that liberty, here freedom of speech, and freedom from government control/criminalization is somehow an "extreme movement to the right."

I would read a more corporate-specific context into it: that a strengthening of corporate personhood is a movement to the right. One could be the world's strongest civil libertarian when discussing the rights of individuals, and still deny corporations most rights--- basically the Jeffersonian position.
9.11.2009 2:56pm
SuperSkeptic:
Mark N, I see what you are saying and yes, my point has take much less significance if viewed that way. The reason I don't is because I don't see the separation between the two (although Olsen and Kagan were both question by numerous justices on it) being acknowledged.

Btw, if it were, I would personally go further, and remove the liability protection from directors or shareholders. Basically if we're going to go with the corp. as indiv. fiction lets go with it, if we are not, then let's fully not.
9.11.2009 3:02pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
Mark N:

That is correct. This is corporate-specific context. Read this NYT Opinion Piece which I found after writing that. In particular see this:

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito seemed to put little weight on the fact that the court has repeatedly upheld a ban on corporate campaign expenditures.


I don't know about anyone else, but it seemed to me that John Roberts was mostly troubled by the fact that the government was asking the court to do what he felt was something new and abandon the rationale of the past precedents.
9.11.2009 3:16pm
LTC John (mail) (www):

I've seen a lot of growing anger on conservative blogs (mostly among commenters) that the Supreme Court won't take birther suits seriously. I wonder how much of that decline in support among Republicans comes from that?


Angus, please. Would you attribute negative Democratic responses to Truthers or somesuch? I suspect you are either egaging in cheap snark, or reading some fairly odd and far out blogs if you come to that conclusion.

I think that gullyborg is probably correct - the libertarians and right seem to be very wary of any government institution right now, so probably a decline there (Down with Kelo, screw CFR, etc.) And with a recent Democrat appointment, the Court is not now looked upon with such disfavor by the left.
9.11.2009 4:42pm
Tom Bri (mail):
A big chunk of the 'Right', especially those of us with libertarian leanings, is suspicious of corporations. I would like to see lobbying by corporations curtailed, though I don't have a easy way to achieve that to suggest.
9.11.2009 10:34pm
John Skookum (mail):
One word: Heller.
9.11.2009 10:57pm
markm (mail):

Gallup also speculates that the lack of controversial decisions by the Court last year may have contributed to a high approval rating.

"Last year" is confusingly phrased, making it sound like they are saying that the Heller decision was not controversial. But "Last year" refers to the SC term; Heller was not last term, but was announced near the end of the previous term. Last year's poll was taken when Heller was still fresh in everyone's mind; Republicans and Libertarians were pleased, most Democrats displeased. Depending upon one's awareness of gun issues, either it's been forgotten by now, or one knows that it's taking many more trips to court to even get the DC government to actually respect the right to keep and bear arms, while extending the decision to Chicago, etc., is going to take more SC cases and many more years.
9.13.2009 1:49pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
MarkM:

I actually don't understand why some folk saw Heller as unexpected or out of line with existing jurisprudence.

Even Presser, the case usually quoted as suggesting that the 2nd Amendment doesn't bind the states includes dicta suggesting that in fact it does bind the states, just not as much as it binds the federal government.

My concern about Heller is actually that it waters down past 2nd Amendment jurisprudence in important issues by commenting on all sorts of issues not before the court (the federal machine gun ban for example) and often does so in a way that misreads past cases on the subject.

In a lot of ways, Heller is a fairly middle-of-the-road yet overly-ambitious opinion which reduces rather than safeguards 2nd Amendment rights. All I can say is "thank the gods for the fact my state's constitution is clearer on this subject."

I suppose that puts me in the anti-Heller crowd, and I suppose I vote for Democrats as often as I vote for Republicans.
9.13.2009 4:48pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.