It appears that Congress is not the only branch with falling poll numbers. According to Pew Research Center, the Supreme Court now is viewed favorable by just roughly 50 percent of the public.
Only fifty-two percent of Americans hold a favorable view of the Supreme Court today. Notably, “[t]here are virtually no partisan differences in views of the Supreme Court: 56% of Republicans, and 52% of both Democrats and independents rate the Supreme Court favorably.” Of course, popularity is not a requirement for the Court, which was given jurists with life tenure to protect it from public opinion. The Court has often been the most unpopular when it has been the most right, such as on desegregation.
Yet, it is striking to see how all three branches remain unpopular with most Americans. Once again, it is striking how the public holds its government in such low regard. Yet, citizens feel incapable to forcing change due to the monopoly of power exercised by the two parties. I have previously written how we need to address this crisis with fundamental changes in our system. The Framers gave us the tools to force such changes, including reforming the Supreme Court. I have previously called for the Court to be expanded to 19 members. However, there are other proposals for reform, but none are being considered in a political system locked down by two parties.
Source: Pew
BTW, I firmly believe that Originalism is a political doctrine promulgated by those in charge (or their lackeys) in order to remain in charge. Of course, where was Orginalism in Citizens United? I’ve checked every use of the word person in the Constitution, and I’m pretty sure they all refer to a flesh and blood creature, not a legal fiction.
And as for today’s neo-federalism, anyone else get the feeling it’s the Articles of Confederation which are being applied, sorta new wine in old wineskin?. Just look and the framework of the national government in the Articles and then look at Ryan’s budget.
“Beginning with the Progressiive Era of the Court, and FDR’s not so velied threat to change the Court into a polticized branch, which he aceived with what is referrred to as a ‘switch in time that saved nine’, the Court began to use fictions of the law to change perceptions of the Constitution.”
bhoyo,
SCOTUS has always been politicized, or perhaps you think the Dredd Scott decision wasn’t political? You’re just parroting originalist theory which is not only a historical, but actually a slapdash compendium of half truths put together by me bought and paid for by such as the Koch Brothers.
“By fictions of the law I mean ‘an assumption which conceals, or attempts to coneal, that fact that a rule of law has undergone alteraltion, it’s letter unchanged , it’s operation modified.’”
A deceptive framing that’s only used as an imprecation when SCOTUS doesn’t decide to your personal liking. All law that remains static to the era from which it comes, is law that putrefies from stagnation. Our Constitution was written in a non-industrial era, in a land underpopulated and divided into States of vastly different, individualized origins. The only logical way to proceed is to continue to apply overarching principles, such as laid out in the Bill of Rights, to a modern context. Interstate commerce is the guiding economic paradigm, since we have grown into a large nation, where the norm is business transacted across State borders. The States themselves are merely anachronistic political fictions that only act repressively in ordering the operations of the nation. This regression is best illustrated by the institution of “Jim Crow” laws, which any fool could see were a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment .
“Those who gripe about the Court seem to have never been educated in our Founding and what a written constiution means.”
Actually, all I see from you bhoyo is bald assertion and disparagement. If you really want to have a discussion about this, why not back up your assertions with logical proofs. Then we’ll see who is “educated” here and who is a mere parrot spouting points he learned from Grover Norquist, Karl Rove and the Federalist Society.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/19/newt-gingrich-ignore-supreme-court-president Don S, Maybe they think like Gingrich.
Disclaimer: any rant against Republican neanderthals should not be taken as an endorsement of Democratic or independent neanderthals.
Gotta figure that a large number of those 56% of Republicans can’t even notice the right wing nature of the court; many probably are stuck in the rant against the “activist judges” mode.
Like a lot of other neanderthals, they only like the civil liberties that they like; the rest are disposable if not considered obviously unconstitutional.
This SCOTUS is the fruition of four decades of hard work on the part of those who would change us into a feudalistic country. The five member majority is made up of men incapable of seeing beyond their own limited prejudices and lacking in the ability to feel empathy for their fellow humans.
Wootsy, how about evil?
John
1, May 2, 2012 at 11:22 am
Evidently people haven’t paid attention to the courts latest rulings, selling elections to the highest paying corporations and their latest ruling that police can now STRIP SEARCH ANYONE for ANYTHING!!!
…………….
——————————————————————————
In my observation, when an entity begins to kowtow to the ‘needs’ and ‘wants’ of 1 entity against reason, law or historical action and prudence, it is a reaction to threat or response to fear…. does anyone else wonder if it is something other than greed that is eliciting this weird behaviour from our highest court?
Gene — don’t hold back; tell us what you really think!
Gene H.
1, May 2, 2012 at 11:19 am
————————————
I love it when you talk like that…… 🙂
Mitch McConnell & The Chamber of Commerce Tell The Supreme Court To Double Down On Citizens United
By Ian Millhiser on May 2, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/02/475022/mitch-mcconnell-the-chamber-of-commerce-tell-the-supreme-court-to-double-down-on-citizens-united/
The Supreme Court is currently considering whether to hear a case that will enable it to correct its error in Citizens United and overrule its indefensible decision to allow unlimited corporate and other wealthy donor money to influence elections. Neither the corporate lobby nor the Senate’s top Republican are eager to see this occur, however. Both of them filed briefs in the Supreme Court yesterday urging the justices to not only reaffirm Citizens United, but to do so without even hearing argument in the case.
Neither one of these briefs are surprising. The Chamber is one of the nation’s biggest spenders on elections, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has long been an opponent of campaign finance regulation. Before President Bush appointed Justice Alito, who became the fifth vote to tear down much of America’s checks on big money in politics, the seminal case upholding America’s ability to defend against such money was McConnell v. FEC. In that case Sen. McConnell was the lead plaintiff who sued — mostly unsuccessfully — to toss out the McCain/Feingold campaign finance law.
Yet while the briefs are unsurprising, they demonstrate both the corporate lobby and the Republican Party’s commitment to keeping wealthy interest groups’ ability to buy and sell elections intact.
Surprised it is not at the level equal to that of congress since it is also a political, biased, party over politics (dont know how to do that strikethrough thing for politics) independent unbiased, separate check and balance judiciary.
Evidently people haven’t paid attention to the courts latest rulings, selling elections to the highest paying corporations and their latest ruling that police can now STRIP SEARCH ANYONE for ANYTHING!!!
As if police abuse wasn’t widespread enough, now it will become routine!!
The Justices do not have e-mail addresses, but you can write to them at: Justice (or Chief Justice) (Justice’s Full Name) Supreme Court of the United States One First Street N.E. Washington, DC 20543
(I have!!)
How’s that Citizens United decision working out for you, you obvious sellout corporatist whores? You reap what you sow. People know a sales receipt when they see one and you sold democracy the day you expanded corporate personality to new and dangerous extremes so your golfing and hunting buddies could hide their fascist takeover of government from within behind a thin veil of poorly reasoned legal rationalization. Stare decisis isn’t a death pact any more than the Constitution is and if you clowns think anyone with half a brain is buying that weaksauce you’re selling, you’d be wrong. The Constitution is informed by the Declaration and the Declaration is against tyranny on all four corners – including economic tyranny. Economic tyranny like officially supplanting “We the People” with “We the Corporate”. Screw each and every one of you black robed boobies who signed on to the majority in that case. If you had an ounce of integrity, you’d all resign yesterday.
I’m sorry.
Did I say that out loud?
Well then . . . I must have meant it.
Free speech. It’s not just for corporations. It never was.
The high court (high on what we dont know) will soon strike down Obamacare. They will leave their own welfare medical care (ScaliaCare) in place. They would be wise not to have their court sessions aired on television. Very few people listen to the court sessions (oral arguments) on the C-Span audio program. If the nation could see these old schmucks, five of whom speak NewYorkie or “tirty turd and a turd”, and watch them squirm and show their eire, then the public would be appalled. Scalia would launch into his Originalist trac about what the Framers of the Original Constitution intended in their own time. Then the audience would start to wonder if those old Originaist Framer folks who created a slave society would abide by the likes of Scalia, a Catholic Italian, or Alito (ditto in more ways than one), or three women, or an African American sitting on the bench. The audience and soon the nation would say: Get rid of these schmucks and certainly take away their ScaliaCare.
Bette Noir,
Might it be an indication that people are not paying attention? Another possibility is the crappy news media.
Once again, it is striking how the Supreme Court holds its government and public in such low regard….
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0501/Supreme-Court-popularity-hits-new-low.-Will-Obama-attack Will Obama attack the Supreme Court if they rule against him on immigration or healthcare? Although the court is unpopular, it could still be “risky”.
What Bette Noir said.
I’m surprised it’s that high.
I knew they could do it.