Thirty-four percent (34%) say the Supreme Court is too liberal. Thirty percent (30%) think the court is too conservative. One in four (25%) say, in political terms, the Supreme Court is about right ideologically. Voters have long tended to view the court as too liberal, but in recent surveys, the number who consider it too conservative has increased.I had to ask myself: What has happened since last September that could cause a 9 point jump? My first thought was: The terrible roll-out of Obamacare. Why didn't the Supreme Court save us from what Congress did?
Thirty-six percent (36%) of voters say the Supreme Court does not put enough limitations on what the government can do. This finding is up nine points from September. Seventeen percent (17%) say it puts too many limitations on government instead, down two points from previous survey. Thirty-two percent (32%) say the balance is just right.
But who knows what cases come to mind when a pollster asks questions like this?
पोस्ट्स
२१ टिप्पण्या:
Why do we measure things that don't matter?
I think a lot of the general public's views are shaped by what they hear in the media rather than by the actual legal arguments of specific cases. Since the general public seldom read the Court's decisions, they tend to rely on the media's reporting to form their opinions about the Court. Conservatives loudly complained for years that the Court was too liberal. It's been only in the last few years that liberals have been complaining that the Court is too conservative. It's just taken some time for the left's complaints to overcome the decades of complaints from the other side.
But who knows what cases come to mind when a pollster asks questions like this?
I'm curious to know who would want to know the answer to the question, and why. Who is paying Rasmussen to do the poll, on other words.
Any restraint on the rule of King Obama I, even as a potential threat only, makes the 5/4 SCOTUS Justices into enemies of Progressive People.
@DKWalser
Yes, I was going to qualify "what cases" in the original post. Nobody is really thinking of the actual cases, but some distortion of what's in some cases.
There's "Citizens United" the buzz phrase, and there's Citizens United the actual case, which few people think of correctly.
Since the Constitution only means what 5+ SC justices say it means, what does it matter? They're unelected and unaccountable. They can stay on the court until they die if they wish. They have a gig that even bureaucrats would envy.
"I had to ask myself: What has happened since last September that could cause a 9 point jump? My first thought was: The terrible roll-out of Obamacare."
As is becoming the norm, Prof. Althouse, your analysis of the facts produces a conclusion that that is precisely bass-ackwards.
Actually, it should be pretty obvious that the 9 point jump was caused by the extremely successful, much-better-than-expected rollout of Obamacare.
I bet if you ask about justices from the "other" party, you get 100% political.
Why didn't the Supreme Court save us from what Congress did?
Well, unlike random people taking polls, I know why.
Because "saving us from bad ideas" isn't the Court's job.
Plenty of bad ideas are Constitutionally permissible, and probably a fair number of good ones are impermissible.
(And I agree with the Professor 100% on the Citizens United divide between the actual case and what people "think" it's about and what it decided.)
My guess is that it is Roberts' Obamacare decision coupled with the rollout of Obamacare. I see Roberts' decision as a very transparent attempt at political compromise with no pretense of application of the rule of law. Obamacare's constant troubles keep Roberts' decision fresh in my mind, perhaps this is true of others.
The Court's job isn't to save us from bad outcomes, just from poorly written laws.
You know I support public policy that promotes stable family structure around kin, but DOMA was the most screwed up way to define marriage. The Catholic Church didn't define it the way DOMA.
As marriage further declines... Little in how public policy address it now we have trouble knowing what it is and its public function.
bbkingfish: "Actually, it should be pretty obvious that the 9 point jump was caused by the extremely successful, much-better-than-expected rollout of Obamacare."
Yes.
A supposedly sentient human being wrote that last sentence.
This is easy. Citizen's United, because it allowed the scary evil Koch Brothers to lay ruin this land of ours.
The left never shuts about it. They get the facts wrong of course.
Why didn't the Supreme Court save us from what Congress did?
Because that isn't the Court's job?
The long-term impact of law profs who teach that all judges are biased, and that their decisions almost always reflect that bias might also be filtering down through the rest of society.
The Crits are simply an exaggeration of an older teaching.
And if judges are taught, in law school, that to be a judge is to reflect a political bias, then men and women, when they join the bench, will believe that that's simply how things are.
Althouse,
"There's 'Citizens United' the buzz phrase, and there's Citizens United the actual case, which few people think of correctly"
No kidding. "Stand Your Ground" is another member of this set.
Renee,
"The Court's job isn't to save us from bad outcomes, just from poorly written laws. "
Nonsense. Plenty of poorly-written laws (which in my view is probably the bulk of them) are entirely constitutional.
Drago,
Your sarcasm detector is broken.
I just think they are too Ivy League.
The Crack Emcee said...
Why do we measure things that don't matter?
She didn't mean it when she said that Crack. It was just a moment of passing annoyance.
" What has happened since last September that could cause a 9 point jump? My first thought was: The terrible roll-out of Obamacare. Why didn't the Supreme Court save us from what Congress did?"
Normal variability.
I believe the members of your Supreme Court are 5 justices and 4 liberal vote robots.
That poll may just reflect the hyper-politicization which the Dems, from White House on down, have infected public discourse as reported in news media.
The next time there's a sane Administration, I'd love to see a series of Presidential addresses which take up the governance of all the people and measures for the general benefit, including the current trend to loot our grandchildren through monster overspending for ourselves.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा