"... and a few days before Trump nominated conservative jurist Amy Coney Barrett to replace her. Back then, 70% of registered voters said they had either 'some' (50%) or 'a lot' (20%) of confidence in the court, and 30% said they had either 'a little' (23%) or 'none' (7%). But the new survey of 1,577 U.S. adults, which was conducted immediately after the leak, found that... just half of voters still express some (37%) or a lot (14%) of confidence in the court, while the other half now expresses either a little (24%) or none (26%).... ...Americans are divided over whether the leak is a 'good thing' (30%), a 'bad thing' (37%) or something they’re not sure about (33%).... [F]ar more Republicans consider the leak bad (59%) than good (19%), and far more Democrats consider it good (50%) than bad (20%)."
Surprising that there isn't more disapproval of the leak, isn't it? Well, actually, I'm not surprised, because I, myself, felt rather impassive about it. I'm sure I'd have said the leak was "bad" if they'd polled me, but I'm unmoved by the histrionics about it, and I'm not that roused by the sanctimony about the Court's entitlement to dead secrecy.
Posts
27 comments:
Surprising that there isn't more disapproval of the link, isn't it?
I'm not surprise that there isn't more disproval of the link between the rank partisanship of the average American voter and the appearance of the Supremes partisan stands. No.
But that not what Althouse meant to ask, isn't it?
Unmoved by the histrionics is very well put.
Leaks are only problematic if you see them as politically disadvantageous. Have not met a truly principled person on the subject yet.
so the media is pushing the Dem party line that the court is about to ban abortion (false) and other rights such as interracial marriages (also way false) and this has all come about because of a unprecedented leak of a draft opinion, which leak indicates someone intimately involved in court proceedings is playing politics with the court. Of course, there is going to be more mistrust of the institution due to the chaos.
The Court is probably one of this entities that enjoys more favorability when it is not in the news, than when it is.
Confidence in the SC has been deteriorating for some time, but so has confidence in many institutions. Hyper-partisanship promoted by the media/leftist ideology is the dominant reason for this erosion of trust.
I think the SC is entitled to confidentiality of internal debate. And frankly the country has been better off for it. Look at the current spectacle of leftist hysteria following the recent motivated "leak". If SC confidentiality spares us such nonsense I'm all for insisting on keeping it.
I think Althouse is underestimating the the impact on process and the destruction of trust in SCOTUS deliberations. Should the standard of behavior in difficult, politically-charged cases be that the justices should not write or say anything in their discussions that they would not want to appear on the front page of the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal? That is where this is headed if it is not squelched now.
Histrionics can be in the eye of the beholder. Trust is an important commodity. The leaker, by disregarding the traditions of the court in an apparent attempt to affect the outcome of an undecided case, has set back substantially the cause of candor and collegiality in SCOTUS deliberations.
I love these polls. When the left is crying, you just know something good is happening.
As a general rule, I think the deliberations should be kept confidential. If any Justice changes their mind between a draft and the final decision, the released draft would be premature and set false expectations. That would or could be very bad.
"I'm not that roused by the sanctimony about the Court's entitlement to dead secrecy."
I agree. It's only felt to be necessary because of the batshit partisanship of the Left. Children break things.
So you would not be concerned about someone leaking your private negotiations.
Prof A: usage? "Impassive" struck me as worth trading out for "indifferent." IMHO "impassive" has a strong flavor of "not showing emotion" i.e. what others observe of one's emotional state, without necessarily also meaning "not having emotion" i.e. what one is indeed feeling behind that fixed expression of cruel neutrality. In contrast "indifferent" describes the inner state, which seems to be what you want to talk about.
Agreed about the histrionics, like Cruz saying he feared the court would never function again. But within more reasonable limits, of course the leak was bad. That so many people disagree can be chalked up to 2 things—(1) the lousy state of our educational system has left many millions of people with no understanding of what the court does or how they do it, and (2) millions of “party before country” partisan Democrats who like the opportunity the leak has given them, consequences be damned. (Yes, I get that there are also party before country Republicans, but in this case, their blind partisanship has them put on the correct side of the question.)
"... I'm not that roused by the sanctimony about the Court's entitlement to dead secrecy."
Who says the Court is entitled to "dead secrecy"? The issues with the leak are its timing, the intent behind it and the lack of integrity of the leaker.
Ultimately, the Court's opinions are published, not exactly dead secrecy. Until that time the only purpose of a leak is to overcome the Justices with political pressure - an illegitimate goal.
The dead secrecy trope is a red herring intended to obscure the corrupt intent of the leaker.
I don't have any very strong feelings about my company's right to have me observe the terms of our NDA. But I do have some fairly strong feelings about their right to sue me into poverty if I violate that NDA. Does SCOTUS have an NDA?
Conservatives historically value process. They understand that they might not get a positive outcome, but if the process is followed they can accept it. It's why conservatives who aren't passionate about the moral aspect of Roe v. Wade still oppose the ruling because they believe the process wasn't followed. Looking at Griswold, then at Roe, it seems like the majority knew what they wanted to rule, then came up with emanations and penumbras to rationalize it.
Liberals (and now leftists) historically value outcomes. So long as they get what they want, they don't seem to care about how they get it. Both those passionate about Roe on moral as well as political grounds accepted Roe because it was the outcome they wanted. RBG is notably in calling it a bad ruling, but the left could still count on her to uphold it if she got the chance.
So when the Court started to fill up with conservatives, those on the right were still leery because those justices would follow the process (i.e., the Constitution and precedent) and the outcomes might not follow. But those on the left became hysterical because they knew a conservative-leaning court might overturn outcomes they wanted to keep. Process is beside the point to them.
I believe that there can be only one standard either leaks are great in all cases or leaks are bad in all cases. There is no exception for cases you consider holy. The confidentiality of deliberations, to me, does not serve the court, but the people who are under its jurisdiction. When a person is requesting a stay of execution and the court writes a draft, and the draft is leaked, the person says hurray I am not going to die! Oops Joe, that was just a draft, we are going to kill you after all. I also hate it when jurors pontificate about the politics of their votes.
Do you mean "more disapproval of the leak" rather than "more disapproval of the link"?
Sorry for the typo of link for leak.
Fixed
Those fuckin’ law n’order Dimocrats…
What if this was brought down to a more local level? A jury is deliberating a potentially big case and the draft of a verdict is leaked. To the press, to the prosecutors to the defendant’s lawyers. The public takes up the case….starts picketing the judges house,the jury members house the lawyers houses. Would this leak be considered unlawful? Can deliberations not done in secret be without influence? What can be done at this point? It’s too late at this point…no?
Would this cause a loss of confidence in the jury system?
Somewhere
I would have liked to see that leak back when the Affordable Care Act was being decided.
But I'm betting that the leaker would have been tracked and killed within hours.
BAMN, right? Well, it's going to start working both ways.
cfkane1701 well put. This is why leftist societies are inherently unstable.
I'm sure I'd have said the leak was "bad" if they'd polled me, but I'm unmoved by the histrionics about it, and I'm not that roused by the sanctimony about the Court's entitlement to dead secrecy.
Well, much of the histrionics are based on fears that leaking drafts will lead to roving mobs aimed at swaying the justices. Now this is happening, and has been widely reported as a violation of federal law. I understand it's led to at least one justice and his family fleeing their home. Are you unmoved about that? The one leads to the other.
Amadeus 48 said: "I think Althouse is underestimating the the impact on process and the destruction of trust in SCOTUS deliberations."
What process and trust?
We are at such an impasse in this country that any rotten action is seen as noble if taken in the defense of one's team's point of view. I don't care about abortion as much as I hope that this leak of a draft ruling -- yet another dishonest waving of the bloody flag -- will not distract us from acknowledging the low point of our current situation as we move toward the midterm election.
From a wacked-out president unable to read his unnamed puppet masters' messages on a teleprompter. From a left that is set on punishing speech it does not want to be heard. From military and foreign policy initiatives that possibly will worsen American citizens' and the country's financial stability.
Sadly, and I hate to say it, process and trust are the least of the matters at stake.
One suggestion I've seen for how the Court should deal with the breakdown in trust between the Court and the law clerks is to get rid of the law clerks, at least, to get rid of temporary law clerks who serve for one year shortly after graduating from law school, and replace them with permanent law clerks, i.e., experienced lawyers. Whether that would hurt the Court or make it better is not clear. It would force the Justices to do more of their own work, I suspect.
And here I was interested mostly in whether the Supremes would recognize and state that some decisions are outside the authority of the federal government, not who won the case. I guess that level of idealism marks me as a lame duck of a human in the US.
It's rather ghoulish that this terrorist group has named themselves after Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
"Ruth Sent Us."
Like they are ghosts and Ginsburg's spirit is now haunting Justice Alito (and apparently threatening to kill him and his family). I don't know if it's true that Justice Alito is now in hiding because of death threats. But I do know that Ginsburg would be appalled at the leak. And she would be extremely appalled at the personal attacks on authors of judicial opinions.
Pretending like this leak is no big deal is rich, given that Thomas was falsely accused of sex harassment, and Kavanaugh falsely accused of sexual assault. One can be pro-choice and nonetheless notice that Roe v. Wade has done huge damage to the Supreme Court, the nomination process, and the rule of law.
One of the classier things Ginsburg did was to assert that Justice Kavanaugh was "very decent and very smart.". She was also highly dismissive of his confirmation hearings, calling it a highly partisan show.
The protests, the death threats, the false accusations, the murdered doctors and the dead babies are all clues that Roe v. Wade was a massive fuck-up by our unelected judiciary. The fact that we're still fighting about it 50 years after the opinion illustrates how the case and controversy remains unresolved. Admitting you have failed is humbling but sometimes necessary.
Althouse, no one here is surprised that you're unconcerned about leaks of drafts of important Supreme decisions.
Nor is anyone GOB-SMACKED to see you support VIOLATIONS of federal law concerning demonstrations outside S.Ct residences.
It's what you crypto-fascist and estrogen-poisoned femmes do when you don't get your way.
"Fuck a bunch of co-equal branches!!" Fuck a bunch of federal law", says estrogen-engorged and learned Con Law prof!!
"Fuck a bunch of this idiocy we call constitutional law that you dishonestly took money to "teach" but secretly disparage an sneer at. , and continue to suck retirement from."
You and the emotionally disturbed Tribe are withered peas from the same moldy pod.
Hey! I just saw this matchbook cover IN a Madison Starbucks:
"IF U CN RD THIS U CN GT A LAW DEGR, CHEAP, FRM THE AlTHSE UPSTRS LAW MPORIUM! NO BAR XAM-- WE KNOW PPLE!
Post a Comment