Below is my column in the New York Post challenging the narrative of the Supreme Court as hopelessly ideologically divided. As the Court heads into the October Session, it remains a court of consensus on the vast majority of cases. While this false narrative is central to the push to pack the Court, the statistics belie the claims of critics.
Here is the column:
The Supreme Court is once again under attack from those calling for packing, or even eliminating, the institution as hopelessly ideological and divided.
The Philadelphia Inquirer recently proclaimed that “The Supreme Court’s conservative majority keeps choosing ideology over impartiality.”
Other media outlets reported “devastating” polling showing the Court as unpopular and losing institutional respect.
It is all clearly alarming — despite being entirely untrue.
Looking at the actual rulings disproves the argument of a “biased” court.
The Court ruled unanimously in more than 44% of cases, slightly up from the prior year.
When you add the roughly 11% of opinions that were 8-1 and 6% that were 7-1 or 7-2, the rate of unanimous or nearly unanimous jumps to 62%.
In over 77% of cases, there was no ideological split in the resulting opinions.
While slightly up, the ideological split emphasized in the coverage is found in less than a quarter of the cases.
Now look at those supposed ideologically besieged liberal justices.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had the lowest percentage in the majority in the last term.
However, she was still in the majority in 72% of cases.
Crossing the prez
Jackson even agreed with Justice Samuel Alito in 49% of the cases and with Justice Clarence Thomas in half of the cases.
The narrative also ignores major losses by the Trump administration in cases dealing with birthright citizenship, mail-in ballots, tariffs, the Federal Reserve Board members and even Trump’s personal defamation case.
Just this week, the court issued a ruling that President Trump called “a big loss for Republicans” in rejecting a mail-in ballot change for the next election.
Those cases saw conservatives voting with their liberal colleagues.
Indeed, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice Neil Gorsuch are generally viewed as “in play” in a variety of cases in creating mixed majorities.
Critics aren’t just wrong that the court is biased, it’s incorrect that the Supremes are particularly unpopular.
A recent Marquette Law School poll shows that the court remains slightly underwater in popularity — with 47% favor, 53% disfavor.
Not great, but those numbers are still more popular than Congress or the two major political parties.
The unpopularity of Congress hit a whopping 86% this year.
Gallup found that only 10% of the American people hold a favorable view of Congress.
Trump’s popularity stands at around 40%.
So the Supreme Court has the highest approval rate and is massively more popular than Congress.
Yet, these members want to trash the most popular institution among the three branches.
Plenty of unanimity
This term is shaping up as another blockbuster, with major cases on gun rights, parental rights, immigration, climate change and other issues.
Some cases will break along a 6-3 ideological divide, but many more will be decided by unanimity or mixed majorities, as in past years.
The problem is that many in the media and politics will continue to demonize the court for those cases upon which they disagree and ignore the many cases upon which most of the justices agree.
That includes exaggerated claims of the court “killing democracy.”
The move to pack the court is based on a long-standing radical agenda to change the constitutional system on the left.
The court is standing in the way and these figures know that it is not easy to get a free people to give up on protections for those freedoms.
They have to be very angry or very afraid.
As a result, the court will resume hearing cases in an atmosphere of rage directed at its institution.
But make no mistake about it.
This court continues to function as designed as a principled, independent institution.
On our 250th anniversary, we should celebrate, not demonize, our highest court.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor who teaches a class on the Constitution and the Supreme Court and is the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
I just finished reading and commenting on the banning of 3 news orgs from the WH briefing room. This column makes my point for me in the comment I wrote in the other column. Public opinion is almost entirely controlled by the false characterization of SCOTUS as overwhelmingly biased in favor of Donald Trump because 6 of the 9 justices are Republicans appointees. As JT points out, many of the opinions handed down by the Court are unanimous but those get very little attention outside legal circles. The administration loses a fair share of cases because more than 1 conservative justice sides the 3 liberals. In the last few weeks 2 important cases were decided against the administration’s position; the birthright and mail in ballots cases. Unlike his predecessor, this administration adheres to the findings of the courts. The misinformation about the Court supports the Dems stated desire to pack the Court to achieve a progressive majority that will approve its legislation without consideration of its constitutionality. Our Constitution will become a dead letter as the first step to end our constitutional republic and establish a permanent authoritarian one party state. This has been made a possibility in large measure by the failure of the 4th Estate to meet its responsibility to both parties accountable. Favoring one party while attacking the other has brought us to this place where the loss of our liberty, security and prosperity is a possibility.
They are certainly wrong about bias for Trump.
The court is biased for the causes the Federalist Society was created to push – those of conservative billionaires.
Sometimes there is overlap between what Trump wants and what the Federalist Society wants, but the conservatives on the court were all from candidates submitted by the Federalist Society to be nominees. Trump didn’t select them; he only knows what his handlers – the Heritage Foundation members – tell him. Since they are the other group of conservative billionaires pushing for control of the executive portion of government they see value in controlling the judicial portion.
Two out of three ain’t bad.
I’ve long chafed at the modern working definition of “impartial” and “neutral”. Specifically, it works by taking the average of the mean-high-water level and the mean-low-water level of the political tides, and calling that “neutral”.
There are several problems with this working definition. First, when the facts are known, political opinions based on “personal facts” (aka strongly held personal beliefs) should not be included in the equation, no matter how strongly stated or the celebrity status involved. Second, unlike ocean tides, which are governed solely by the gravity of massive objects in the solar system, political tides are easily manipulated. Why should the definition of “impartial” depend so heavily on the shamelessness of the actors involved?
Mainstream news reporters take the lazy way out, reporting what each side said while passing up obvious opportunities to research basic facts. Democrat politicians and leftist activists have learned how to play this game well. Common example: Democrat claims Republican is racist; Republican denies being racist; the story then becomes whether the Republican is racist, and any discussion about the pros and cons of the underlying policy gets lost.
I just finished reading your latest book. And two days later received a notice that you are the first speaker at the 2027 Desert Town Hall (where we have annual tickets). We are looking forward to your talk❗️ I learned more about early American history (and the French Revolution) from your two most recent books than I learned in school (and I have an MS in journalism) which probably says more about my contemporaries who form the “Media Elite.” I’m a retired owner/operator of media vehicles.
Jonathan Turley’s defense of the Supreme Court relies on a classic statistical illusion: denominator dilution. If you don’t believe it look it up. By treating a routine bankruptcy procedure or a technical tax dispute with the exact same weight as a landscape-shifting ruling on executive immunity, voting rights, or abortion, he manufactures a false narrative of institutional harmony. The public’s declining trust in the Court isn’t sparked by how justices rule on mundane corporate statutes; it is driven by the reality that whenever a case carries profound social, cultural, or political stakes, the Court systematically fractures along a predictable 6-3 supermajority line.
Turley claims the conservative majority routinely hands losses to Donald Trump or the Republican party, proving they are strictly independent. Nope.
This ignores the difference between frivolous political theater and long-term conservative legal goals. When the Court rejects a legally meritless, last-minute election lawsuit, it isn’t acting as a “liberal ally”—it is simply preserving its own institutional credibility by refusing to validate conspiracy theories. However, on structural, deeply embedded conservative priorities—such as dismantling the Chevron doctrine, restricting regulatory agencies, and expanding executive power—this Court gives the conservative movement exactly what it has spent forty years funding the Federalist Society to achieve.
Before today, X had never heard of “denominator dilution” and still does not understand it in correct or valid application other than AI’s take.
See what we mean, folks?
… and your point is? Elections have consequences. Do you expect anyone to believe that a dem controlled WH and senate wouldn’t pack the court with leftist wackos? And then that court wouldn’t be ideologically unbalanced.
I can only conclude that your college years were spent at a second or third tier school. I’m curious to know how Turley would shred you, politely, if you were to have a debate
X, It’s a myth that people only use 10% of their brain, It’s not a rule!
#. The worst opinion in history, PT?
Consensus is a tool. It sits and finds the kernel that all have in common. It is not compromise. We see that in real time in the gerrymander.
*. Sits–> sifts