7 ms·
Confidence in U.S. Supreme Court Sinks to Historic Low
- DLA 4y agoMisleading headline.
- jjulius 4y agoNot at all. >Americans' confidence in the court has dropped sharply over the past year and reached a new low in Gallup's nearly 50-year trend. Twenty-five percent of U.S. adults say they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court, down from 36% a year ago and five percentage points lower than the previous low recorded in 2014.
- BeefWellington 4y agoWhat exactly is misleading about it? The Gallup poll shows pretty much that? > Americans' confidence in the court has dropped sharply over the past year and reached a new low in Gallup's nearly 50-year trend. Twenty-five percent of U.S. adults say they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court, down from 36% a year ago and five percentage points lower than the previous low recorded in 2014.
- lovich 4y agoIts misleading because he doesn't like it
- Comevius 4y agoThe headline is accurate, the Democrats and independents are not into the religion-related rulings and the Republicans are not into the Supreme Court not reinstating their king after he lost the election. Everyone is disappointed.
- bediger4000 4y agoI'll note that you can offend "both sides" and still not act correctly, or morally. That's the fallacy that mainstream media seems to believe: if people on both sides of a spectrum tell me I suck, I must be doing things right. In the media's case, they're not, they're just sucking. Let's not make the same mistake here.
- bryanrasmussen 4y agoHas there ever been any analysis as to what the confidence level was before Marbury vs. Madison?
- belly_joe 4y agoInteresting that GOP confidence is down as well (since 2020)
- lovich 4y agoThey didn't give Trump the election. They were quite open about the anger at the courts at the time
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- tablespoon 4y agoIt's not terribly surprising. The biggest drop was among Democrats and (probably Democratic-leaning) independents, and this court isn't very friendly to their ideological priorities. With modern polarization, "confidence" actually seems to mean "confidence I'll get the result I want from it" (e.g. how ideologically aligned it is to me).
- jlbbellefeuille 4y agoThe nation’s loss of Confidence in the court is due to the law yesterday changing this morning putting our nation 50 years into the past, all while going against all previous precedent, against the new judges testimony prior to confirmation(meaning at least 3 judges lied to get on the court), and the uncertainty that additional laws will change on the whim of religious fundamentalism, laws that our nation was built upon like separation of church and state, that we have been taking for granted. If laws were changed due to new information and were consistent with other laws regulating things like shutting down life support for brain dead adults when compared to abortion, I doubt the SCOTUS would have lost the confidence of the nation.
- tablespoon 4y agoThank you for providing and example of the kind of thing I was referring to in my GP comment.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Comevius 4y agoIt should be noted that a court not friendly to human rights and the separation of church and state is not merely against the Democrats, but all Americans.
- iostream24 4y agoNo, it’s rather the raw power grab and blatant disregard for our institutions or common sense that is clear to most people. This Supreme Court is blatantly corrupt.
- rayiner 4y agoThis is how we end up causing our institutions to crumble. Your average American has no idea what Roe means or doesn’t mean, or what it’s repeal means or doesn’t mean. It’s incumbent upon elites to tell the truth. Instead, people are playing fast and loose with the truth for political gain. Erin Chemerinsky, for example, a prominent Constitutional law scholar, called overturning Roe a “pure exercise of Republican power.” In reality, Roe was the left’s Lochner. A pure exercise of judicial law making that could not point to anything in the Constitutional text or history to support a sweeping rule. It’s a precedent that even folks in the left have taken to defending merely by virtue of its existence as such. It’s protection of second trimester abortions is out of step with public opinion, and out of step among the law in other civilized nations. Not all liberal precedents are like that. In fact most aren’t. There’s a huge difference between Brown and Loving and Obergefell and Roe both legally and in how the relevant issues have played out in domestic and international politics. Nonetheless, it will make political hay to act like overturning Roe will unleash the floodgates of rolling back everything else. Never mind the fact that, even though Roe was so vulnerable from the very beginning, it took conservatives 50 years of single-minded effort to overturn it.
- a2tech 4y agoIf there is such a huge difference why did Thomas specifically call those other cases out in his support?
- rayiner 4y agoIf there isn’t a difference, why didn’t the other four Justices in the majority join in his concurrence? There’s a spectrum of opinions among legal conservatives on many decisions. Kennedy wrote Obergefell and Gorsuch wrote Bostock. But no legal conservative thinks that Roe was correctly decided and a fair number of legal liberals don’t either. (Alito quotes a liberal legal scholar in this opinion who said of Roe at the time that it wasn’t Constitutional law and didn’t even try to be.)
- monocasa 4y ago> If there isn’t a difference, why didn’t the other four Justices in the majority join in his concurrence? Because commenting on other cases is generally not something the supreme court finds acceptable, heavily preferring to only comment on the questions directly before them.
- iostream24 4y ago
- jansen555 4y ago
- itsdrewmiller 4y agoNotably based on a survey that was only in the field June 1-20, so missed the actual Roe v. Wade ruling (though probably the leak did a fair amount of damage on its own).