Supreme Irony: Polls Show Drop In Approval of the High Court Despite Unanimous and Non-Ideological Decisions

According to a new Gallup poll, the Supreme Court has fallen to the lowest point in four years in approval despite a term marked by a long list of unanimous and non-ideological decisions. In perhaps the best evidence that the Court is getting it right, all sides seem equally frustrated with the Court.

The Court’s approval ratings dipped slightly below 50 percent for the first time since 2017. Some 49 percent approved of the job the justices are doing–down from 58% a year ago. What is notable is that both Democrats and Republicans appear equally annoyed by the Court. Both Democrats and Republicans show a majority still favoring the Court at 51 percent. The independents drag the approval rate below 50% with a 46% approval rate.

There was a decline of 9 points  among Republicans, 11 points among independents and five points among Democrats.

Of course, that is still far better than Congress with an approval rate of 35 percent.

The roughly 50 percent still favoring the Court is remarkable after the unrelenting attacks in the media, including the ongoing campaign for court packing and fundamental changes to the institution.

The Court itself seems unfazed.  It continues to speak through its decisions and released a series of unanimous and sharply non-ideological decisions. It is precisely what the Framers hoped for in creating lifetime tenure to insulate judges and justices from the pressures of politics.

51 thoughts on “Supreme Irony: Polls Show Drop In Approval of the High Court Despite Unanimous and Non-Ideological Decisions”

  1. Although the SC decisions are unanimous, may be non-ideological and correct from the legal point of view, the perception is quite the opposite. 🙁

  2. Justices and judges must be impeached, convicted and severely penalized for gross dereliction and negligence in their egregious failure to support the Constitution, for voiding and nullifying the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and for acts of treason for “…adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort…” as each level and degree of diminution of constitutional American freedom adheres to, aids and enhances the enemies of America, which are China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela et al.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________

    “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    “…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton
    _________________

    1. True enough. But, in all honesty, SCOTUS is often confused about their role also.
      SCOTUS wrote abortion laws
      SCOTUS wrote homosexual marriage laws.

      Why did they do that. We have a fully functioning legislative body. Why does SCOTUS short circuit the people governing themselves?

      1. Obamacares, including progressive affordability and prices. Abortion laws under the Pro-Choice religion that deny women and men’s dignity and agency, and reduces human life to a property that can be cannibalized or sequestered for social and medical progress, planned population schemes, is a forward-looking property of transnational, transhumane, and globalist power structures past, present, and, it seems, the foreseeable future.

      2. Trans/homosexual marriage of couplets was normalized under the religious principle of political congruence (“=”), the same principle that socially justifies human sacrificial rites, in lieu of the popular choice of civil unions for couples, couplets, alike, and, presumably other quantities and qualities in the liberal spirit of inclusion through divergence. It is, unfortunately, a Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, relativistic world.

      3. iowan2, you’re right, courts shouldn’t make laws. Then again our legislatures should. Too bad they often leave that to a president to use executive orders, and bureaucrats to make rules and regulations that virtually become laws.

  3. Turley Pretends Liberals Should Be Okay With This Court.

    The Court’s Decision To Hear The Case Involving Mississippi’s Draconian Abortion Restrictions has deeply disturbed anyone who cares about women’s reproductive rights. The mere fact that the court will even listen to Mississippi’s argument signals encouragement to every Red State Republican legislature. Most women don’t even know they’re pregnant at 6 weeks. Therefore a 6 week threshold becomes, in effect, a backdoor, total ban of abortion.

    And since when does Mississippi influence national policy?? Only this Court enables such dubious players.

  4. Of course the court will lose support. It was designed to loosely reflect popular will – members selected by the elected President – and it does not come close to that now. Unlike any previous time in history, 5 of the 9 justices were appointed by Presidents that voters rejected at the polls. It’s majority is against popular will on major issues like abortions, gun control, and voting rights and it represents a shrinking minority of American voters.

    1. PS This court majority being out of synch with the popular will is especially highlighted by the fact that the GOP has won only 1 out of the last 8 popular votes for President.

      1. You bring up a good point Joe. Instead of democrat mayors unilaterally deciding to defund the police, maybe defunding the police should be put to the voters as a referendum question on a ballot. Some cities might decide to defund cops. Be interesting to see.

    2. Unlike any previous time in history, 5 of the 9 justices were appointed by Presidents that voters rejected at the polls.
      That’s a special kind of stupid you have going on there.

      Not a single president has been elected by popular vote. Because the nation is run by the states, and the citizens of those states.

      It is a distinction that defines our government. Unless you haven’t heard, the United States is not a democracy.

      1. iaowan does not argue with the stated fact in my post – 5 of the 9 current justices were appointed by President’s that voters rejected. That has never happened before, and in fact there have only been 4 such presidents in our entire 250 years+ of governance.

        Iowan may want to note that the EC was not designed to be winner-take-all – 2 states allocate their delegates proportionally – and was not in it’s earliest days.

        He may also want to note the fact that the US is in fact a representative democracy.

      2. Iowan2. There you go again. The democrats would like to federalize the elections. Because it’s not federalized, each state matters.

  5. The one thing Turley loves to hide, is the “shadow docket”. Of course, the right-wing loves it because it’s done sometimes without debate or oral arguments, and without providing signed opinions or detailed explanations. If he cared for the law the way he says he does, he would write about it. Meanwhile we can just listen to the crickets from Turley.

    1. Wow if you did your own blog, you would soon have all of Turleys readers, What with your insight and brilliance. (ignoring that part about trying force a person to care about something you care about)

      1. Of course, If Trump and his cult had their way, Turley wouldn’t have to write about the SCOTUS at all. The stable genius and chosen one would be the law.

  6. We’re to be surprised that any poll shows the public is negative to the Court? Did the survey ask in specific about the Supreme Court or in general all courts? Am I surprised that that there is a perceived negative view of the supreme court with all the drama and lies that were presented during the most recent two confirmations, (Kavanaugh and Barrett). The Leftist Democratic Party members of Congress painted the two candidates not worthy of confirmation and the lowest scum from the bowels of earth. The Leftist Democratic Party members of Congress are the Crocodiles of the Washington Swamp who patrol the DC swamp waters waiting for their next victim. They devour any not of their persuasion in hopes that others may see the red castings on the waters they patrol and forsake drinking from the swamp waters of DC. The aspersions they cast to the winds go far and wide, fouling the reputations of any that attempt to drink from the swamp waters whom are not Leftist Democratic Party members, tainting the public’s view of the Courts as an example.

  7. Turley– “The Court itself seems unfazed.”
    ***
    Not quite. The string of unanimous decisions seemed to be political in part, an attempt to ward off court packing.

    The tendency of many courts, including the Court, to flee from election cases was disgusting. It is as if our election laws are found in the Digest of Justinian rather than American law books, interesting but no longer real law.

    As for ‘diversity’ and affirmative action, they have created an enormous mess of state authorized and supported racial discrimination.

    Act like politicians, expect to be treated like politicians.

    1. Diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment), including racism, is a problem. Affirmative action is not a problem. However, affirmative discrimination is.

    2. It is slowly sinking in with the public that the Supreme Court has royally screwed up the country. The public is also realizing the rotating cowardice of a number of the Conservative justices. Truth is that the Conservative justices have screwed the country the worst: Roberts with Obamacare, Scalia with religious liberty, Kennedy with Gay marriage, and Gorsuch with sex = gender. With Conservatives like this who needs Liberals. We can destroy the country without them. With the big and important cases, the court chokes. Even when they defend religious liberty or the right to life, they decide narrowly.

      The Liberals have no problem with sweeping change and throwing precedent into the trash can. The Robert’s court also choked on the election. They decided to not do anything until after the election, to leave clearly unconstitutional China virus changes to election laws in place. Then found cases moot. They could have ruled that last minute election law changes by courts were null and void, and that the election would proceed under the rules enacted by the legislatures. They fueled the election mess. They undermined democracy.

      They showed themselves unworthy of the honor and duty of protecting Constitutional rights and the clear language of the document. What baffles me the most is that it’s always the Conservative justices that go rogue and turn Liberal, never the other way around. My only suggestion is quit appointing those damned Ivy League grads. Give us some diversity of Law Schools as well. These unanimous decisions are like bringing in water to comfort the victims of an atomic explosion. It’s too little comfort, and likely too late.

      “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”
      ― Laurence J. Peter, The Peter Principle

  8. It is not just the SC that the public is questioning but government bureaucracy itself:

    Questions are now being raised as to whether the FBI had a role in the Capitol Hill protests of January 6, 2021. When one examines the FBI’s involvement in the Trump-Russia collusion hoax; Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuses; standing by idly while in possession of Hunter Biden’s Ukraine and Burisma-laden laptops, while President Trump endured a second phony impeachment; and the frame-up of Trump’s National Security Advisor, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn – it is not too difficult to imagine.

    The FBI needs to go away. It should happen in an orderly and thoughtful process, over a period of months. Congress should authorize and create an investigative division in the U.S. Marshals Service and open applications for law enforcement officer seeking to be rigorously screened, vetted and then accessed into the new organization. Similar action was taken before in the very creation of the FBI. It is now time to clean house and restore the public’s trust in the “premier investigative agency” of federal law enforcement.

    cont: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17602/disband-the-fbi

    1. The real question for that House committee — the one that will never be asked (or answered): Why did Pelosi allow the Capitol Police to be so unprepared?

      1. Yes. Democrat leaders have been creating painful events that they blame on their opponents. They have taken the Marxist-type revolution to new highs in the US.

        A simple comparison of violence demonstrates BLM and Antifa to be involved in terrorism. The FBI has been complicit in too many illegalities. The Jan 6 insurrection panel in the House has nine members who wanted to impeach Trump. Rational discourse with those on the left is impossible. The left has closed its eyes to rule of law.

        The so-called insurrection was a group of unarmed people that violated the law. They were the furthest one could be from an actual insurrection. I believe all of this was likely manipulated. The only question is by how much. We are now moving in the direction of a police state. We are no longer a constitutional republic. It has been replaced by a fascist oligarchy that has totalitarian desires.

          1. Again, thanks for trying to bring some truth to this right-wing echo chamber, not that it will matter.

            1. Thanks! Actually posted an AP source because I know how well Politifact is received in this fact free zone. Lol.

              1. What it proves, again, is that the Trumpsters will believe anything put out by the alt-right media they rely on for daily affirmation. Instead of blaming Trump and the Big Lie for the disgraceful things that happened on January 6th, somehow the Trump Insurrection is Nancy Pelosi’s fault, someone else’s fault, anyone else’s fault. McConnell and McCarthy couldn’t even be bothered to watch the officers testify about what they went through to keep members of Congress, including them, safe. Whatever happened to gratitude? But for these officers taking beatings and buying time for them to escape, members of Congress would have been murdered. The officers testified that this is what the Trump rioters said. Whatever happened to Republican support for law enforcement? All they know is that these hearings will make Trump look bad, and since they’ve decided to leave the moorings of the Republican Party and join the Cult of Trump, they suddenly forgot that Republicans used to be pro-law enforcement. Ironically, some of the Trump disciples were even carrying thin blue line flags that they used to beat Capitol Police Officers with. Of course, Turley’s employer (Laura Ingraham, in particular) claims that these officers were putting on an act, as if we don’t have video confirmation of everything they testified about. My question for Turley is: how far does Fox have to go before you disengage from them? How much abusive, un-American rhetoric and how many outrageous lies does it take, or is the money more important?

                1. Natacha, we have seen Turley’s answer to your question almost everyday, He has gotten better at throwing chum at the swamp.

            2. Ultimately the one who authorizes payment is the one with ultimate control.

              You might never have met or seen your boss, but even though there are many layers in between, the boss usually has control. Thus, if your boss wants a specific dress code, you comply.

              The ability to think is needed when looking up answers to questions. Try doing so sometimes.

              The financial authorization comes from the House (and Senate).

              SM

          2. Pro tip: Responsibility is not = to day to day operations.eo
            The President of the Board does not run day to day operations. Nor does the CEO. Now explain to me how those two are not responsible for the operation of the Business.

            By your logic, the indictment of the CFO for Trump business somehow touches President Trump…he does not run day to day operations.

        1. Capital security is a constitutional enumerated power of Congress. Congressional leadership would be the persons to execute that power. Pelosi is speaker of the House. Unless you are saying McConnell somehow shoved Pelosi out of the way and called all the shots, Pelosi is responsible.

        2. “Because Capitol security isn’t her job.”

          The hell it’s not.

          USCP answers to the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives. The Sergeant answers to the Speaker — Pelosi.

          Countless times *before* Jan. 6, the then USCP Chief requested the assistance of the DC National Guard. Every time, that request was denied by *Pelosi*.

          Their being unprepared is *Pelosi’s* fault. The only interesting question is: Why? What was she angling for?

          1. You are correct. Certainly, security isn’t the only thing for which she is responsible, but it’s one of the things.

  9. It’s the general malaise over all of our failing institutions from the government to the military to organized religion to the stunning defeats at the Wokelympics (“I have to quit to preserve my psyche – wah!”)- all run not so coincidentally by avowed leftists. Most folks have no idea what the Supreme Court does or how it does it. So naturally, they lump them in with the other failing institutions.

    1. If you’re referring to Simone Biles, please note that she was unable to use the performance-enhancing drug Ritalin in Japan, which made a difference. Also, you may not know that her brother was on trial for three counts of murder until five weeks before the Games started. (Case was dismissed.) These things could affect her focus in a way that I can sympathize with — which is not to say that I disagree with your broader point.

  10. The Good Professor bases his assumptions upon the conduct of the Court….not the Media and Democrats attacks on the Court and the damage that has caused to the Court.

    Ever since 1973….having taken a University Course called “Judicial Behavior” taught by Professor Saul Brenner….I have understood that Justices cannot be labeled by their voting records as they do not vote in a singular manner and their Voting is far more affected by the Cases and the Issues within the Arguments that determine their actual Vote.

    Professor Turley acknowledges that in his opening description of the outcomes of the many cases decided by the Court recently.

    So….why is not Professor Turley teaching the American Public of this during his appearances on National Media?

    Instead of us here….he really needs to teach the American Media….hopeless effort I know….but perhaps a few might grasp the truth of his teachings. Hope does spring eternal.

    1. Neither education, truth, nor revelations from above will change the US media. What ails the US media has nothing to do with lack of knowledge or information. The US media has an agenda, and it’s sticking to it.

  11. It will take a lot of time and forgiveness in the eyes of the public for the court to overcome how Mitch McConnell has manipulated it. Full stop.

    eb

    1. Yeah the way the Democrats treated Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Kavanaugh and even Amy Conan Barrett surely shows that this is all Mitch McConnell’s fault. Another foolish comment by EB. Why is it that only conservative justices get treated so harshly? Why no attacks on RBG for her past opinions and statements? Why do liberal and even far left justices manage to get some republican votes and yet highly qualified and serious conservatives get no votes from the Dems? Why do we have a loser like Chuck Schumer saying “we are coming for you Kavanaugh and Gorsuch?

      Just as an added aside, why was it not insurectiony when the mob attacked the Supreme Court? Why was it not insurectiony when the mob INVADED the Senate and even harassed a sitting senator IN A DAMN ELEVATOR? No tears from Schiff or any of the lying Capitol police?

  12. Sort of contrary to the thought the Court follows election results. If everybody is mad then they might be doing it correctly

  13. Since when is anything regarding the judicial branch a popularity contest? I cannot fathom the volume of documentation required to be read and considered for a single ruling.

    I once read that a poll is pooled ignorance.

  14. Polling is worthless. Most people don’t answer their phones so the sampling is small and unrepresentative. Then there is the problem of ignorance. The average voter knows practically nothing about the Constitution, the Executive Branch, Congress or the Judicial.

  15. “In perhaps the best evidence that the Court is getting it right, all sides seem equally frustrated with the Court.”

    Maybe it is evidence of the public’s fatigue. One side wishes the Supreme Court to act as a leftist segment of the legislature and the other part wants the Supreme Court to follow the Constitution.

    Had the SC followed the Constitution in the earlier decades, the left would have depended on the legislature. SC fatigue would not exist.

    A grade of C provided by all sides is not a sign of getting things right. It’s a sign of poor quality.

  16. I suspect what the polls may REALLY be showing is a contempt of government in Washington, D.C., in general.

  17. Just more evidence that pandering is a fool’s game.

    Stand up for what you believe in and do the right thing.

  18. The sheep eat the fodder the MSM feed them. When you have no concept of how America’s government works, of course it’s easy to believe the propaganda. And the left and their media lapdogs know it…and count on it.

Leave a Reply