Gallup: Supreme Court Overall Approval Slightly Improves After Recent Rulings

A new Gallup poll shows some interesting insights into the approval of the Supreme Court after its major rulings on abortion, guns, and other issues. The overall approval of the Supreme Court at 43 percent actually increased three points. While within the margin of error, it was up from last year’s 40% popularity. The poll comes after the surprising comments of Justice Elena Kagan that the Court may be losing legitimacy by bucking public opinion on issues like abortion.

The slight increase is not due to a stable base of supporters but rather the shift among Democrats and Republicans. The most significant shift was among Republicans from 29 percent to 72 percent support. This offset a decline among Democrats from 23 percent to 13 percent.

The 43 percent rating puts the Supreme Court roughly where it landed in 2005, 2013, 2014, 2016, and last year.

Among independents, approvals remains around 40 percent (a slight decrease but consistent with prior years).

There is also a sharp difference on gender with disapproval by women at 61 percent as opposed to 49 percent among men.

The low level of support among Democrats is alarming given the push among Democrats to pack the Court with an immediate liberal majority and other reckless proposals. Now that the Court has a conservative majority, many Democrats have turned on the Court and its members.

Kagan’s comment seemed consistent with the criticism of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) that the Court was improperly departing from “widely held public opinion.” Warren used the complaint to justify her call for raw court packing to produce an instant liberal majority.

The poll, however, shows a deep division on the Court and its legitimacy after the recent rulings. The overall approval rate shows substantial support for the Court despite dramatic shifts based on political affiliation.

The 43 percent approval rating is still far better than the 18 percent for Congress in Gallop polling. That is half of the peak for Congress last Spring, which was only 36 percent. It is also higher than the approval rating for President Biden, which stands at 38 percent.

Fortunately, the Court is designed to resist such pressures and polling. Justices are expected not to reflect the demands of public polling but the demands of the Constitution in ruling on cases.


119 thoughts on “Gallup: Supreme Court Overall Approval Slightly Improves After Recent Rulings”

  1. Don’t look to the Supreme Court to legislate. Wrong branch.

    Blame Congress, not the Supreme Court, if you object to laws or wish new ones.

  2. I am Pro-Choice, I want that said up front. I am not happy about the Dobbs decision. Yet, I believe it is a correct decision, but not the right outcome. At the same time, I do not agree with the Supreme Court on this decision, but respect it and how they decided the case. i do not think the Court is out of touch or anti-woman. It is a decision I do not agree with on this case. Nothing more. There is an old saw about Judge made law is bad law. I agree with that saw. Roe was the “right” outcome, but bad reasoning. it was not interpretive of law, but judge made law. Ruth Bader Ginsburg even acknowledged that case was poorly decided.

    Ultimately, this is not going to be win for Republicans or Conservatives. At some point, abortion will be legal in all fifty states. When babies get born nobody wants, there will be abuses and cries for more welfare. The state will have to take on more children and that will cost. Taxes will have to cover and then the other shoes will drop. there will be a politician’s kid that needs get one and there will be gotcha moments. Views will change. There will be court battles and votes, but views will change.

    It will be at that point someone will realize the brilliance the Court showed. It is not the Court’s job to write the law, but only to interpret the law to see if it is Constitutional. It is the legislature’s job to write the law. In this case as in others, Politicians have been hiding behind the Courts to dodge any fallout. Now they will have to take a stand. Let the chips see where they will fall. My bet is if the public really wants this, they will get it because large amount of angry voters are still a force. Politicians have been hiding from this case for 50 years and have done nothing to Federalize it. Plenty of time and none of them did a thing. Now, they will have to lead, as they should have from the beginning.

    The Supreme Court is not a popularity contest. It is an incredibly difficult job on extremely complex topics. The reason the popularity fell was because politicians play games and both sides play.

  3. In response to the Kansas vote to uphold abortion protections, conservatives reply: That’s fine because abortion is a state issue.

    But wait.

    According to the conservatives own premises, abortion is “murder.” So their view now is that “murder” is okay, as long as the majority vote for it? Doesn’t the Constitution ban “murder?” Aren’t there state laws against “murder?” Shouldn’t the courts step in, to protect the “innocent” from being “murdered” (which actually would be mass “murder”)? How can conservatives sanction this “crime” against “human life?”

    Or is it that, on this issue, conservatives are so unprincipled that they can no longer tell which side is up?

    1. Sam, you do realize that killing occurs in many fashions. War is one. Stop drawing meaningless lines and deal with reality.

    2. Or is it that, on this issue, conservatives are so unprincipled that they can no longer tell which side is up?

      Are you so ignorant that you cannot see that there is more than one issue here? 1. Federalism 2. Abortion In that order.

      There will always be cultural issues that conservatives will win on and lose on. What Dobbs did was limit those wins and losses at the state level. So no, conservatives haven’t now sanctioned abortion.

      1. For the premise challenged (or the willfully blind):

        Abortion is murder. (That is the *conservative’s* premise.) Kansas upheld abortion. Therefore, Kansas legalized murder.

        They’re your premises. Own them.

        1. You’re conflating Conservative’s support for federalism with abortion. That’s as ignorant as believing support for ratifying the constitution was a vote in support of slavery.

          The path to begin to unwind the evil damage Roe inflicted on this country was always to get the laws out of the grip of the federal government. Dobbs did that.

          Conservatives in Kansas are the same as they were pre-Dobbs. They still have a fight against the murder of unborn children. The difference post-Dobbs is they can now focus all their attention within their state.

          1. That’s as ignorant as believing support for ratifying the constitution was a vote in support of slavery.

            Well played

            However, you debase yourself when you continually bang a drum for “conservatives”, a label that is as fluid as standing water. You can do better. Become familiar with Gnosticism and Pelagianism, 2 ancient heresies that have roared back today. Pope Francis wrote an excellent exhortation on this topic, entitled Gaudete et Exsultate (Rejoice and Be Glad)


            Gnostics think that their explanations can make the entirety of the faith and the Gospel perfectly comprehensible….They absolutize their own theories and force others to submit to their way of thinking…(they) reduce Jesus’ teaching to a cold and harsh logic that seeks to dominate everything.

            Pelagians ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules

            – Pope Francis

            1. However, you debase yourself when you continually bang a drum for “conservatives”, a label that is as fluid as standing water.

              From the link: 41. When somebody has an answer for every question, it is a sign that they are not on the right road.

              You assume my use of the term Conservatism has no specific meaning. You can do better. Perhaps reread the evils of Gnosticism.

              1. Olly, you are totally on target. The difficulty surrounding what you say is your use of the word conservative. I believe you use the term as in ‘big tent conservative’ where all conservatives can sit together under one tent.

                Quoting you to Sam: “You’re conflating Conservative’s support for federalism with abortion.”

                It is crystal clear whether or not Sam, Estovir, or anyone else desires to use an alternate meaning. Such an attack on your word means they have too much difficulty dealing with the ideas behind ‘big tent conservtism.’

                1. “DeSantis suspends Soros-linked prosecutor over vow to ignore abortion, child sex-change laws Governor says prosecutor also indicated intent to ignore abortion laws.”


                  DeSantis is a great Presidential candidate. He understands the law and wishes to follow the desires of the people.

                2. The difficulty surrounding what you say is your use of the word conservative. I believe you use the term as in ‘big tent conservative’ where all conservatives can sit together under one tent.

                  Thank you SM. I’m probably as guilty as anyone for using a label to lump someone under a particular “tent.” It’s more of a shorthand for some particular context or definition. You and I have been on here together long enough to know what my meaning is. Others may not. Few ask for clarity. What many do and Sam’s recent comment is just one example, is they get intellectually lazy. They have an agenda and will fill in the context gap with whatever they believe best makes them look good. Paint Chips and Silberman are/were notorious for drawing erroneous conclusions based incomplete facts.

                  1. Olly you are generally quite clear and your numbers always seem to add up. 🙂

                    Those who wish to promote their particular ideology and cannot accept a big tent philosophy want limited discussion and such discussion only on their own terms. You are different and see things in a better light.

              2. You assume my use of the term Conservatism has no specific meaning.

                Which is why I wrote

                However, you debase yourself when you continually bang a drum for “conservatives”, a label that is as fluid as standing water.

                you proved my point.

                So be it. You’re a Conservative. Got it.

    3. What Republicans don’t understand about abortion is that a woman can personally believe that life begins at conception, and therefore, abortion would be wrong for her, but, at the same time recognize that this view is based on religion or simply just her own personal beliefs and values, and that it would be wrong to force another woman who doesn’t share this belief or value to be denied the right to reproductive autonomy–up to the age of fetal viability, at which point the equities change. The wisdom of the Roe v. Wade decision is becoming clearer and clearer as Republican-controlled states enact laws banning abortion and criminalizing women who seek them and doctors who perform them.

      1. I personally don’t believe that two-year-olds are sentient beings. I accept that others feel differently, that strangling a toddler would be wrong for them, but clearly they have no right to impose those beliefs on me.

        1. The issue isn’t whether someone is a “sentient being”. The issue is ability to live outside the womb. Your analogy is nonsense.

    4. There will be those that will argue as you just did. And there will be those that believe it is a State issue. Not all Conservatives are on the same page on this or any given issue. Lumping them all together is both a disservice and a simplistic look at both a divisive, contradictory, and complicated issue. The fact that Conservative Kansas upheld abortion rights may be a bellwether event. It is the first win in what will probably be a long and hard fight.

    5. Sam, your the one with a logic problem. 21 weeks is a tumor to be removed, 23 weeks is a human life. So which is it? I remember the Maryland legislature and Governor threw a party when they legislated killing babies in the birth canal. Conservatives are not the hypocrites here

  4. The KS defeat of the “Value Both” Amendment is a healthy sign of citizens taking back power over policy from the most committed activists.
    This follows on the Dobbs decision, whose significance is a message from SCOTUS to the lower Federal Courts “you are not to be making policy in alignment with activist plaintiffs”.

    Will the lower Courts follow this dictum? Only time will tell. The committed activists surely aren’t going to stop trying to use the courts to circumvent building public consensus.

    1. “The KS defeat of the “Value Both” Amendment is a healthy sign of ”

      You are happy. I am happy. The people are getting to decide.

  5. Now in Kansas, a baby at 24 weeks is afforded constitutional protection. But at 22 weeks, you can kill the baby. The difference in the two babies is , shut up.

    1. Iowan2:
      It’s a typical compromise position that I expect a lot of states to follow. Compromise is what lubricates factions and keeps a society intact. Everyone gets something but nobody gets all. You only get “all” when everyone agrees. The clowns singing the chant of “diversity and inclusion” never acknowledge that diversity undermines their movement. They just lie and say they’re for it so long as the “diverse” agree with them. Otherwise, they’re quite exclusive. I hate posers.

      1. It’s a typical compromise position that I expect a lot of states to follow

        I’m just pointing out babies are human life, and the leffist have to eat alot of crow

    2. “. . . a baby at 24 weeks is afforded constitutional protection.”

      Really? Where in the Constitution is fetus “rights?”


    Deep Red Kansas Reaffirms Abortion Rights

    In a major victory for abortion rights, Kansas voters on Tuesday rejected an effort to strip away their state’s abortion protections, sending a decisive message about the issue’s popularity in the first political test since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June.

    The question presented to voters here was whether abortion should remain protected under the state constitution. A “yes” vote would allow Kansas’s Republican-led legislature to pass future limits on abortion — or ban it all together — in its coming session in January. A “no” vote would leave those protections in place.

    With 86 percent of the vote counted, 62 percent of voters wanted to maintain those abortion protections compared to 37 percent who wanted to remove them from the state constitution. Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab predicted that turnout for Tuesday’s primary election would exceed recent years, and possibly match that of the 2008 presidential election when around 50 percent of the eligible voters cast ballots.

    Edited From:

    Professor Turley’s column today links a Gallup Poll showing that 62% of American women disapprove of this court. The Professor seems to see some silver lining in the poll; though none of the numbers cited are terribly positive for supporters of this court.

    And now we have the results of an abortion referendum in deep red Kanasas. Republicans were so determined to restrict abortion rights that they played every trick possible to confuse voters on this ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ ballot. But women were paying much closer attention than Republicans hoped. 62% are saying ‘No Restrictions’.

    Interestingly that 62% number corresponds with the percentage of women who disapprove of this court in the Gallup Poll Turley linked.

    1. Strategically that is a very good outcome. The status of abortion in Kansas did not materially change and federalism has proven it won’t turn women into 2nd class citizens.

      SCOTUS’ favorability should improve even more. Thank you President Trump.

    2. That was the point. States get to choose for themselves. Kansas did precisely what SCOTUS intended. So did Texas. Would hardly refer to Kansas as ‘deeply red’ at this point, either. The possibility of divergent outcomes is too much for a statist to handle.

      1. Kansas Is Bad Omen For Republicans

        Those who cheered the Dobbs decision should be bothered by Kansas. This referendum could signal a pro-choice backlash to abortion trigger laws.

        Red states could find themselves having to backpeddle on abortion. That, in turn, would infuriate the Christian Right; a group that imagined it won a huge victory. It could see it’s victory totally ignored.

        1. It proves the Democrats wrong in their understanding of our federalist system. I also don’t think you have a good understanding of the “Christian Right.”

          Overall the decision was good for almost everyone, except the power hungry.

        2. Ananoymous:

          Kansas is not a bad omen. Kansas is what happens when people decide for themselves how to handle abortion laws. In conservative states, they will be more restrictive, but probably not as restrictive as the most conservative would wish.

          By letting states handle these issues, not only will abortion laws be legislated at the will of the people, but they can be adjusted. When 9 unelected justices somewhat arbitrarily picked viability as the cutoff, it was more permissive than most Americans wanted, but they had no recourse.

          CA and NY will be the most permissive, having babies held back in the birth canal so they can be aborted prior to drawing air, while the more conservative states will be more restrictive. The people of Kansas just weren’t happy with that exact bill.

          1. “Kansas is not a bad omen.”

            It’s not?

            But according to conservatives, abortion is murder. So Kansas sanctioning “murder” is *not* a bad omen? “Murder” is okay, as long as the majority wills it?

            Why do you all keep evading the (obvious) implications of your own premises?

            1. Acording to the left, people in states especially red states are to ignorant to make their own choices.

              Whatever the outcome of the Kansas election it was self evident that the people of Kansas were capable of choosing for themselves.

              1. As usual you have it exactly backwards. People in states that ban abortions have taken away womens’ rights to exercise their right to reproductive freedom based on the religious beliefs of the minority. What stake does anyone other than the pregnant woman have in whether she terminates an unwanted pregnancy prior to the age of fetal viability?

                1. “As usual you have it exactly backwards. People in states that ban abortions have taken away womens’ rights to exercise their right to reproductive freedom based on the religious beliefs of the minority.”

                  Nope. There is not and never has been a right to an abortion. That was the fundimental problem with Roe/

                  “What stake does anyone other than the pregnant woman have in whether she terminates an unwanted pregnancy prior to the age of fetal viability?”
                  The fetus certainly has a stake.

                  I note that you introduce viability. Are you ceding that after viability abortion is undeniably murder ?

                  Make a claim to a right of the woman to control her own body – that is a plausible constitutional claim.
                  But that claim has several problems.
                  First it allows you to remove, but not kill the fetus. While abortion is about killing the fetus, and that is why it is not and can not be a right.
                  We do not have the right to kill a dog.
                  But the next problem is that it also means that government can not force us to vaccinate or wear masks or shutdown church services – because choices about our body are OURS.
                  A right to control of your own body – would also likely drive the federal government out of healthcare.

                  Ypu want to prevent government from regulation abortion – but you have no problems with myriads of other intrusive regulations.

                  There are lots of unwanted things in life that I can not do anything about.

                  You are free to have sex – or not. You are free to use birth control – or not. You are free to take the morning after pill – or not. You are free to travel to a state or country that permits abortions – or not. If you do not, you may get pregnant -that is how things have worked for all of human history. You have far more options post Roe, than you did 200 years ago, or even in 1973 when Roe was decided.

                  I would personally like to see the court recognize the right to control your own body.
                  But that has much broader consequences. It will not give pro-abortion forces what they want. But it will constrain lots of bag government.

                2. You point to viability.

                  At what point and on what basis can we decide that you can or can not kill a fetus ?
                  What is the difference between an 8 month fetus and an infant ?

                  You rant about religion. Religions provide an answer to this question.

                  Science actually does not. Science can not answer when the life of a fetus has independant value – when is it a human.
                  It can tell us about its development.

                  We can decide as a matter of law. But the law is whatever we make it – so long as it does not infringe on actual rights.

            2. Sam, there is a difference between sanctioned “murder” and “murder” that isn’t sanctioned. The death penalty is “murder” for many on the left, but it is sanctioned “murder”. The same occurs with abortion.

              Conservatives have various opinions regarding abortion even though you mistakenly omit that fact because that is the only hook you think still holds up your argument.

              Conservatives believe in the rule of law. They want the Constitution followed. Whereas leftists will riot and kill when The Constitution opposes their desires, conservatives will first consider the Constitution while dealing with the moral issues differently.

              1. “. . . the only hook you think still holds up your argument.”

                Nice try.

                My argument is a simple syllogism. But now that its premise has come home to roost, some desire to ignore it.

                1. Sam, there is nothing like a failed syllogism to back up your case. Try again.

          2. Karen S: As usual you don’t know what you’re talking about when you claim that elective abortion up to the age of fetal viability “…was more permissive than most Americans wanted”. That’s just not true, as poll after poll proves. Age of fetal viability is not arbitrary. The ability to survive outside the womb is a point at which a state can legislate. That’s what Roe said. And with advances in neonatology, this is not an arbitrary cut off: it is a moving target.

            Another thing you don’t understand or don’t want to understand is that most Americans DO NOT want government intrusion into private reproductive affiars. You are, once again, making up lies when you claim that babies are “held back in the birth cancal so they can be aborted prior to drawing air”. That does not happen.

            You also are completely wrong in claiming that “the people of Kansas just weren’t happy with that exact bill.” This has to be some lie you sopped up from Fox. It wasn’t a bill, Karen S: it was a referendum question that simply asked Kansas voters to indicate whether the provision in the Kansas Constitution that protects the right to abortion should be abolished. The choices were either: “yes” or “no”. 60% voted “No”. There was no magic language in any bill to agree or disagree with. So if Fox is telling you these things, they are lying to you. Why do you keep believing them?

    3. Strange. I thought only judges could determine abortion matters from the Bench. Dangerous stuff, allowing people to set the laws they want to live under.

      1. Explain to me the sense of a patchwork of rights regarding abortion: a Constitutional right in Kansas but a felony for both the patient and doctor in Indiana. No logic whatsoever.

    4. Aninny:
      Hey Dippy the point of Dobbs was to let the states decide. If they wanna be baby killers at 9 months or fetus killers at 9 minutes, that’s the states’ prerogative. That’s what the Court said, The folks in Kansas have spoken and that’s one voice of 50. People should be able to decide the mores of the community and live with the consequences. Mores can change and here’s betting they do and now they can flow with the will of the people and not the will of the judge. That’s a win for everyone including women whether they understand that or not.

    1. When do all the conspiracy theorists who pushed the fake Russian Hoax go on trial??

  7. Sadly judicial activism enjoys a tradition.
    Only our textual Constitution please.

  8. “A new Gallup poll shows some interesting insights into the approval of the Supreme Court…”

    – Professor Turley

    “It’s the [Constitution], stupid.”

    – James Carville

    “the people are nothing but a great beast…

    I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

    The letter of the Constitution holds dominion, not the ravings of a great and savage beast.

    The republic was intended to be the restricted-vote variety.

    1. “[Store owner] fired one shot and struck the [robber] in the arm, leaving the 23-year-old man screaming, “He shot my arm off,” as he ran away.”
      A Farewell to Arms

      1. Good one, Darren.

        This foiled robbery took place down in Norco, where some of my friends live. It’s a horse town surprise, not what you’d expect down in Southern CA. There are bridal paths through town, crosswalk buttons at rider height, and many businesses have hitching rails.

        Those people will not tolerate rampant crime.

        1. After that fiasco of a robbery at the Security Pacific Bank there in 1980, I’m glad to see they are still keeping their guard up. Unfortunately politicians and opportunistic LE administrators soon forget and ignore the eventuality of these types of confrontations and stop giving LEOs the arms they need to protect themselves and the public. LAPD found that out with the North Hollywood Shootout.

      2. LOL;)

        What he Earned for himself, among other things, was a lifetime of his buddies poking fun at him.

        Asking What, you couldn’t afford to hold up the gas station down the road because they were charging an Arm & A Leg!

        Hat Tip to the 80yr ole White Guy…. showing those damn Ole Koreans down in South Central LA their not the only ones that can do some biz when need.

Comments are closed.