U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court Gets First Negative Approval Rating
Posted Jul 28, 2008, 07:15 am CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Only 39 percent of U.S. voters approve of the way the U.S. Supreme Court is handling its job, while 43 percent disapprove, the first negative approval rating for the court in five years of polling.
The court got its highest approval rating in May 2007, when 58 percent approved of the job being done by the court. The Angus Reid Global Monitor noted the results.
In the latest survey, conducted by Quinnipiac University, 42 percent said the court is moving in the wrong direction while 33 percent said it is headed in the right direction. Twenty-five percent said the court is too liberal, 31 percent said it is too conservative and 33 percent said it is about right.
The respondents were also asked to weigh in on a debate on original intent. Forty percent said the Supreme Court should consider only the original intentions of the authors of the Constitution when making decisions, while 52 percent said it should consider changing times and current realities.
When asked for their opinion of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., 57 percent said they hadn’t heard enough about him to have an opinion.
Related Stories
- There were not related articles.
Related Topics
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Comments
Posted by neil - 3 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 16 hours, 26 minutes ago
the court’s caseload shrinks year after year, while everyone else works more
Posted by kay sieverding - 3 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 4 hours, 58 minutes ago
I thought the S.C. would approve my petition but they didn’t hear it and then I figured they didn’t read it. Then I was trying to figure out who decided what they read and whether those clerks or whoever can be bought off. Or maybe they just take token cases. Or maybe it is who you know. This really left us hanging and upset.
What I don’t understand is why the number of Supreme Court justices isn’t proportional to the population. In 1790, the total U.S. population was less than 4 million, less than the population of Denver today. In 2000, the U.S. population was over 280 million, more than 70 times the population in 1790. So if the number of Supreme Court justices was proportional to the population, we would have 630 Supreme Court justices today instead of 9. So they wouldn’t be so famous but they would actually have time to consider the petitions.
Posted by AC - 3 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 22 hours, 13 minutes ago
The most important number:
97.69% of those surveyed couldn’t name one person on the court.
You can always count on the media to take and report completely meaningless surveys.
Just a thought…...
Posted by Joe - 3 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 21 hours, 51 minutes ago
I wonder what the Supreme Court’s approval rating would have been had this issue been polled when a sizable percentage of the population was calling for the impeachment of Associate Justice William O. Douglas?
Posted by Law Clerk - 3 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 20 hours, 2 minutes ago
Who really cares if there is an approval rating or not. The whole idea of being a federal appointed Article III Judge is that there is no pressure from outside attention. The Justices are there to decide issues based on the law, not to appease the rest of the country. I’m sure they looked at this, laughed, and said “Whatever” and moved on.
Posted by Chris - 3 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 19 hours, 30 minutes ago
What I don’t understand is why Kay feels the need to bore us with her crazy sob stories and theories every single week.
Posted by Andy the Lawyer - 3 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 19 hours, 22 minutes ago
Responding to Kay (#2)—By the same logic we ought to have 70 presidents.
Posted by Jade - 3 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 19 hours, 22 minutes ago
I have to agree with Law Clerk. Though I would love for my opinion to count in SCOTA decisions, that’s simply not their role and I can understand that. So who cares about this poll?
Posted by Bill - 3 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 19 hours, 15 minutes ago
The notion of an “approval rating” of this sort for the Supreme Court is stupid. As “Law Clerk” points out, the judiciary is meant to be the non-political branch. Not saying that it truly is, in reality, but this is just additional evidence of how the American public has no clue about what the judiciary is supposed to be, versus the legislative and executive. The only “approval rating” that matters for a judge is whether he or she is behaving as a jurist - not whether he or she is reaching the politically correct or popular result.
Posted by Call Me Skeptical - 3 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 19 hours ago
OK, and just why do people hold the court in low regard? Are people mad because the Court offers greater protection to virtual kiddie porn than to political campaign speech? Are they in favor of executing child rapists? Would opinions change if the respondents knew that the “living constitution” nonsense brings them cases like Kelo?
This “survey” of people whose knowledge of the Court is limited to the 5-10 headlines they read each year only confirms the general tenor of the “news” coverage. After Kelo came out, the vast majority of letters to the editor in my community actually blamed the judicial originalists who were in the minority. As much as it pains me to watch Souter in action, this story confirms the importance of lifetime tenure.
Posted by William S. Daniel, Attorney - 3 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 18 hours, 46 minutes ago
After Gore v. Bush, the worst decision in
U.S. Supreme Court history, it is no wonder
that public opinion of the Court has been
deteriorating. The Justices brought it upon
themselves by going where they should not
have tread.
Posted by Barry Glazer - 3 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 18 hours, 45 minutes ago
Call Me Skeptical,
I think you estimation of people reading 5-10 headlines re: the SCOTUS each year is grossly exagerated. Otherwise I agree.
This poll is pointless. As a previous poster noted, most people couldn’t name half of the Justices, let alone the entire court. Nor could they tell you what cases they disagree with.
Posted by A Country Lawyer - 3 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 17 hours, 42 minutes ago
Mr. Daniel—
With respect to the Court going where it should not tread, you mean cases like Roe v. Wade or (Dred) Scott v. Sanford, cases where the Court tried (and failed) to take thorny, controversial issues out of the political realm, arrogantly assuming that the Court could then settle the controversy?
Cases like that?
Posted by DebTurret - 3 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 17 hours, 14 minutes ago
Yeah, Kaye…really. Pull yourself together and get that head out of your ass. You make no sense.
Posted by A City Lawyer - 3 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 17 hours, 1 minute ago
The S.C. gave us Bush; why should they have anyone’s approval? And William O Douglas had more integrity in his little finger than all of Mr. Justice Scalia.
Posted by A Suburban Lawyer - 3 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 3 hours, 3 minutes ago
Amen, Country Lawyer…and, City Lawyer, I think Brennan is dain bramaged!
Posted by Joe - 3 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 22 hours, 4 minutes ago
City Lawyer: William O. Douglas was very likely suffering from alzheimers disease from an early age. And, btw, Roe v. Wade is certainly one of the worst reasoned decisions ever made by the SC.
Posted by kay sieverding - 3 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 5 hours, 32 minutes ago
How is it not logical to consider the problems
that the Supreme Court must be have keeping
up with its workload with the growth in the
population and the complexity of the Internet
patents etc.
Posted by kay sieverding - 3 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 5 hours, 30 minutes ago
How can the S.C. keep up with its administrative responsibilities?
Posted by anonymous - 3 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 4 hours, 38 minutes ago
Is there any disciplinary review of appellate court judges? How do we know that the court clerks aren’t taking $ to send appellate court cases to certain judges, judges who don’t use de novo review on questions of law etc.
Posted by tired of this - 3 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 4 hours, 32 minutes ago
The public holds the S.C. responsible for the law as they experience it. Right now, the law as people experience it makes lawyers look bad. Just reading the Wall Street Journal makes lawyers look bad. It is too bad to cover up.
Posted by kay sieverding - 3 months, 2 weeks, 5 days, 4 hours, 16 minutes ago
Dear # 13
What did I write that “makes no sense”?
I don’t understand why the S.C. in its administrative role didn’t react to my mandamus petition regarding a defense lawyer acting as prosecutor in indirect contempt and using summary procedure in indirect contempt, both of which are explicitly prohibited by the S.C. Obviously, they don’t read 100 times the number of cases they rule on, because they don’t have time. So who decides what the S.C. reads and how do they decide?
Posted by Curtis - 3 months, 2 weeks, 3 days, 13 hours, 28 minutes ago
Mr. Daniel (#10) and Country Lawyer (#12),
May I ask you to consider Wickard v. Filburn as possibly the worst S.Ct decision ever? When a man can not consume the product of his own land and labor without somehow impacting interstate commerce to the point of Federal intervention, you enter a whole new world of government overextsnsion. It is this case, more than any other, that overturned the entire system of government envisioned by our founding fathers.
Posted by Acejd - 3 months, 2 weeks, 16 hours, 24 minutes ago
Kay - Get. A. Life.