April 9, 2012

"Supreme Court’s Ratings Jump Following Health Care Hearings."

A new Rasmussen poll:
Just before the highly publicized hearing on the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care law, ratings for the U.S. Supreme Court had fallen to the lowest level ever measured by Rasmussen Reports. Now, following the hearings, approval of the court is way up.

Forty-one percent (41%) of Likely U.S. Voters now rate the Supreme Court’s performance as good or excellent, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. That’s up 13 points from 28% in mid-March and is the court’s highest ratings in two-and-a-half years.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
It is impossible to know if the improved perceptions of the court came from the hearings themselves, President Obama’s comments cautioning the court about overturning a law passed by Congress, or from other factors. Approval of the court had fallen in three consecutive quarterly surveys prior to the health care hearings.
But pay no attention to the polls, Supreme Court Justices. You shouldn't think about your own popularity. And also, the way to be popular is not to think about it.

Should President Obama be kicking himself over this? Maybe not. The jump in popularity is all coming from Republicans, though it's worth noting that Democrats have stayed in the same position and have not lowered their opinion of the Court. And Obama's disparaging of the Court wasn't for the purpose of turning people against the Court. It was more about: 1. prodding Anthony Kennedy his way, 2. laying a basis for defending his law if the Court happens to call it unconstitutional, and 3. setting up the argument that we really need him to appoint the next couple Supreme Court Justices.

17 comments:

Scott M said...

3. setting up the argument that we really need him to appoint the next couple Supreme Court Justices.

This, more than trying to work up the Democrat base if ACA falls (6-2), is what I think Team Obama-Fuck Yeah! will be using as their base workup sauce. I don't know how many of the usually politically unaware (on either side) have a workup potential over SCOTUS nominations though, mainly because they have to understand the reason WHY you want those appointments. That usually gets you into glazed-eye territory with those folks.

Rabel said...

or

4. A small, egotistical man lashing out in desperation.

edutcher said...

As I say, the Lefties, and particularly Dictator Zero, are really riding a cold streak.

leslyn said...

Is this another Rasmussen poll?

Which means, what, exactly, to the members of the Court? Nothing. They're appointed for life. They don't have to pay attention to polls. It would be unethical if they did.

Jay said...

Obama = King Midas in Reverse

edutcher said...

leslyn said...

Is this another Rasmussen poll?

Which means, what, exactly, to the members of the Court? Nothing. They're appointed for life. They don't have to pay attention to polls. It would be unethical if they did.


It's pretty well established the Supremes keep an eye on the polls (if they get unpopular enough, Congress can always find ways to spank them).

If not, the death penalty would still be banned in this country.

Simon said...

The President's ability to effectively campaign on an unfavorable decision is, a rational person might think, next to nothing: Every poll indicates that a majority of Americans would agree with the court should it strike down the mandate, and an even larger majority will shed no tears over its demise even if they're on the fence regarding its constitutionality. There is, of course, a large constituency of people who agree with Obama and will be outraged if the court strikes down some or all of the act, but so what? Those folks are already voting Democratic.

shiloh said...

"Ha ha ha ha ha."

Indeed, as most of your flock doesn't care lol. :::zzz:::

But I care enough to comment on your Ha ha ha ha ha.

Ha! :D

CWJ said...

Once polls and politics became harnessed to plow political debate, we all became the more poor for it. I could go on for paragraphs, and I spent eight years in all phases of the opinion research business, but I perhaps naively always held supreme court deliberations apart from the rough and tumble of everyday politics. Obama's demagoguery and direct attempts to intimidate the court chill me. That we keep score as to the result with this or that poll saddens me.

Alex said...

CWJ - you say politicians should not be guided by public opinion. Then what should they be guided by? The only alternative is a king.

traditionalguy said...

Amazing example of how good Judges following principles and seeking truth make everyone relax for a change.

No wonder Obama hates the SCOTUS. They are an antidote to his latest crisis and confusion built on lies.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CWJ said...

Hi Alex, We don't disagree, but that's not what I said at all. First, my immediate emphasis was on the court which in my naive grade school idealism should be guided by the constitution, not public opinion. Second, given my experience in the business I would be very slow to identify polling with public opinion.

Robert Cook said...

I wonder how popular thie Supreme Court will be with the public when they discover the court has decided they can be strip-searched any time, for any reason...if the police decide to arrest them for any reason...or for no reason.
After all, according to Justice Kennedy, a seemingly innocent person arrested for not wearing a seat belt must be assumed to be be potentially in possession of drugs or weapons hidden in his or her asshole.

I wonder when the " presumption of innocence" is supposed to kick in?

Simon said...

CWJ said...
"I would be very slow to identify polling with public opinion."

I have argued repeatedly over the years that opinion polls are meaningless, but broad trends in polling are generally reliable. When one opinion poll says that Sarah Palin or Barack Obama is disliked, that is meaningless; if just about every poll taken by multiple polling outfits over the course of several years concurs in saying that they are disliked, that is fairly reliable, I should think.

Robert Cook said...
"the court has decided they can be strip-searched any time, for any reason...if the police decide to arrest them for any reason...or for no reason."

Of course, Florence says no such thing; it's not an attractive thing when your hopes for sparking public outrage rely on people not reading the case.

Robert Cook said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Cook said...

Simon,

I don't see how you can draw any other conclusion than that my characterization of the decision in Florence is the practical outcome that we will see: police departments liberally (heh) strip-searching at will.

You many not want to face it, but we are now, essentially, a police state...and we are not at the endpoint of the clampdown