As the Supreme Court convenes for
its fall session on Monday, public disapproval of the institution has never
been higher, according to the results of a Gallup
poll released Friday.
About 50 percent of Americans said
they disapprove of the highest court in the land, the highest level of
disapproval since Gallup has been tracking the statistic over the past 15
years, while 45 percent said they approve of the work the nine justices are
doing, and 5 percent have no opinion.
Story Continued Below
While still within the margin of
error, the court's approval had traditionally been above 50 percent from 2000
to 2010; public opinion has been much more split in the past half decade.
The partisan gap between Democrats
and Republicans narrowed, if ever so slightly, from the most
recent Gallup
survey in July, in which 76 percent of
Democrats they saw the court in a favorable light. This time, it's 67 percent.
Republicans, whose approval of the
court hit a record low in July at 18 percent, saw their approval climb slightly
to 26 percent in the latest survey.
The court is expected to take up
cases involving a variety of hot-button issues this session, including capital
punishment, affirmative action and redistricting.
The poll was conducted Sept. 9-13
via telephone, surveying 1,025 adults nationwide with an overall margin of
error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/poll-supreme-court-approval-rating-214363
Roberts' Rules of Disorder, February 05, 2016
Chief Justice
John Roberts said he isn't bothered "at all" by the criticism of the
Supreme Court -- which is good, because there's plenty of it. Heading into the
2015-16 term, public disapproval of the Court had never been higher.
And with a stack of social issues before the bench this spring, last year's
numbers may look good come June. Religious liberty, ObamaCare mandates, and
abortion regulations are awaiting their turn before nine justices who haven't
been winning popularity contests for their impartiality these days.
Chief Justice
Roberts, whose double betrayal on ObamaCare has made him few friends among
American constitutionalists, tried to tamp down the criticism of his Court
during Law Day at New England Law-Boston. In a Q&A with the school's dean,
Roberts insisted that the ideological divides in Congress are what's coloring
people's perceptions of the Court -- instead of the real problem: the justices'
themselves. The gulf between Americans and the Court isn't Congress's fault --
it's the fault of the unelected men and women in his courtroom who've taken it
upon themselves to rewrite the Constitution.
"It's
usually discussed as, 'Oh, you're in favor of this, or you're in favor of
that,'" Roberts pushed back. "In fact, our ruling is that
whoever does get to decide this or that is allowed to do it, and that's not
unconstitutional, that it's consistent with the law. But we often have no
policy views on the matter at all, and that's an important distinction."
What do you call Elena Kagan's, Sonya Sotomayor's, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg's actions officiating same-sex
marriages if not "policy views?" And Kagan's involvement in ObamaCare
was hardly the stuff of objectivity when she not only defended the law as
solicitor general but celebrated its passage as "amazing."
Still, Roberts
blames the process -- not his people -- for the country's frustration.
Party-line votes have determined the fate of the last four justices, suggesting
to Roberts "that the process is being used for something other than
ensuring the qualifications of the nominees." If anything is being used
contrary to its purpose, it's the Court itself, which insists on inserting
itself into policy issues where it has no business being. The American people
don't need law degrees to understand the limited role the Constitution gives
the Court.
And while
Roberts blames his controversial opinions on a desire to shrink the judiciary's
influence, his tenure has had the exact opposite effect. If the justices are
wondering who's to blame for the country's disdain, look in the mirror. The
majority of this Court has taken it upon themselves -- not to interpret laws,
but write them. Don't be fooled by this political sleight of hand. Regardless
of what Roberts says, ideology has always played a part in the Courts'
configuration -- especially as constitutionalism becomes less of a universal
value and more of a conservative one.
This is nothing
more than Washington elites trying to downplay the issue of the Court in an
election year where it has never been more important. Roberts, who at 61 is the
second youngest, presides over the oldest justices in
American history. That means the next president will nominate two -- if not three --
Supreme Court replacements and dozens of lower court judges. Considering what
the courts have done in trampling the political expression and
self-determination of the American people, the issue judiciary should be front
and center in 2016. It may very well be the last opportunity to break the
destructive grip of this oligarchy on America.
No comments:
Post a Comment