Congressional Democrats blocked an effort to introduce a constitutional amendment to bar the Court’s expansion, with many members reiterating their demand to pack the Court to create an instant liberal majority. The Democrats insisted the Court is broken and no longer legitimate because of partisan rulings they want reversed by a packed Court. Ironically, the vote came with the release of the latest Harvard-Harris polling showing that Congress itself is still the least respected institution, while the Supreme Court holds higher approval than either the White House or Congress.
Congress is still wallowing at 34 percent approval among the American people. Both parties are equally disliked, with 55% disapproval of the GOP and 53% disapproval of the Democratic Party.
Conversely, the Supreme Court continues to enjoy far greater approval from the public, currently at 49% at “very favorable” or “favorable.”
So which institution is being targeted for elimination or radical reform? Of course, it is the more popular Supreme Court.
Packing the court and other measures are unpopular with the public. Instead, Democrats hope to achieve these reforms through legislation. However, it must then pass judicial review.
Liberal professors and pundits have identified a court takeover as essential to, as one law professor put it, guaranteeing that the Democrats never lose another national election. As former Attorney General Eric Holder and Democratic strategist James Carville have made clear, it is about power and guaranteeing its retention.
There are now calls for a litmus test for Democratic candidates to pack the Court or get the sack.
Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) wants to take over the Court to reverse rulings against racial gerrymandering while other Democrats have demanded packing the Court to reverse immigration rulings.
They join a growing list of figures demanding the hostile takeover of the Court from Kamala Harris to Pete Buttigieg.
At its base is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Court’s role. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) not only renewed her previous call to pack the court but said the court was illegitimate for rendering decisions against “widely held public opinion.” However, the court was meant to be counter-majoritarian to protect minority groups and viewpoints from the majority will.
Notably, this effort is not even popular with the majority. It is a power play to force major institutional changes through Congress, including radically changing a Court that is more popular than Congress itself.
The job of the Supreme Court is to determine whether or not a law or policy is Constitutional. Not popular. Not wise. Not smart. Not anything else. And certainly not based on feelings, despite what Ketanji Brown Jackson thinks. That is deference to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. Today’s Democrats believe they are smarter than Madison, than Jefferson, than Hamilton, than Washington, than Adams, than Monroe. All of them. If Democrat think packing the court is a great idea, then let’s have President Trump begin efforts to add four justices to the high court. Done.
Since the Court’s job is inherently anti-majoritarian, it follows that a low approval for the Court means it’s doing its job correctly (contra the comment below suggesting a low approval means the Court is not doing its job right, which is exactly backwards).
This is in contrast to Gigi/X/Svelazrepeatedly suggesting the Court’s rulings are different than popular opinion. Popular opinion matters for the political branches – legislative and executive – but not for the Court. The Court’s sole fidelity is to the law, not passions of the day among the population. It cannot serve two masters. Those passions are exactly what the Court is designed to keep in check.
“Former Attorney General Eric Holder and Democratic strategist James Carville have made clear, it is about power and guaranteeing its retention.”
They better be careful what they wish for, as Leon Trotsky found out.
#WeAreEstovir means exactly that. It is Estovir expressing solidarity with Estovir.
A 49% approval rating for a non-partisan, lifetime-appointed Supreme Court is historically very low. For decades, the Court routinely enjoyed approval ratings well over 60%. It seems Turley doesn’t want you to notice just how bad it is for the Supreme Court.
In its 26 years of tracking, Gallup’s high was 62% (2000 and 2001). Perhaps you have a source to back up your claim. More importantly, an approval number tells you how people feel about the court’s decisions and nothing about their reasoning. Gallup’s own analyst says the GOP drop came from the tariffs and birthright citizenship decisions. Democrat drop was after Dobbs. Same 6-3 majority, different outcomes.
Olly, you just posted the source. Gallup. The General Social Survey (GSS)—which has tracked public confidence in the Supreme Court since 1973—show that the percentage of Americans expressing a “great deal” of confidence routinely hovered between 30% and 40% for decades, before plummeting to an all-time historic low of just 18% following the Dobbs decision.
The unprecedented drops in approval among Democrats and Independents post-Dobbs were uniquely sustained because they followed a highly politicized appointment process (such as the block on Merrick Garland and the rapid confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett). That’s not just “feels” it’s their actual reasoning.
Those approval numbers are nothing to brag about. Less than 50% of the population approves of the Supreme Court. That’s not good.
Republicans wanting to freeze the current numbers actually goes against Turley’s view on the court. He prefers a much bigger number of justices. Whether democrats choose to block this or not is irrelevant. Republicans don’t have the majority or the political capital to make and amendment possible. Not in this political climate.
Trump’s poll numbers are atrocious and republicans are openly starting to distance themselves from him. The war with Iran is being completely ignored because Trump a not winning. The economy is not doing well either and now data centers are so unpopular that republicans once big supporters of them are doing wild 180’s opposing them.
The midterms are not going to be pleasant for republicans and I don’t expect Trump to live long enough to finish his term.
Less than 2% of this blog approves of your waste of bandwidth. What say you to that?
Awww that’s cute. Did you come up with that all by yourself?
These judges and not elected. So polling means ZIP!
Woe is me, can you imagine 4 more Ketanji Jackson’s?
That would make The Jackson 5.
They would affirm a ruling that “Never Can Say Goodbye” was their greatest hit.
Lin – good one!
Yours,
Uncle Henry
Marcus, never seen you before. Just popped out of nowhere?
You think we are only ones who like this blog
“We” being Estovir’s puppets? Like ‘you’ Dustoff?
She’s a lot better suited than the current batch of conservative justices. Maybe a new Kennedy in the mix would be better.
LOL.. Even her own lib justices knows she not that smart.
You see, X, that’s your problem.
AS far as I can recall, criticism on this blog about Jackson has been grounded in her sauciness, her superciliousness, her condescension, her attempt to pretend her opinions reflect a superior take over her colleagues on the issue , her simplistic understanding, her express assertion that her role was to let others know how SHE feels about issues, etc.
It has nothing to do with conservative vs. liberal.
What makes you so contrarian? There are several blogs more to your leaning, and it doesn’t look like you changed any minds on this one here, -so don’t bother invoking your usual “fair game” smoke screen. Peace. have a good weekend.
“Congressional Democrats Seek to” impose the “dictatorship of the majority,” the “dictatorship of the poor,” the “dictatorship of the proletariat’ and destroy the safeguards in this democratic republic in order to impose the Communist Manifesto in the once-free United States of America.
@anonymous – “Democrat dictatorship” That’s all very possible but you know that citizens uprising everyone is hoping for in Iran, what’s the odds it will happen here first?