The approval rating of the nation’s highest court stands at 40 per cent, according to a new poll
The Supreme Court’s approval rating has plunged to one of its lowest levels yet ahead of a ruling on Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for president.
The approval rating of the nation’s highest court stands at 40 per cent, according to the latest poll released by Marquette Law School on Wednesday.
The latest numbers rival only those of July 2022, when only 38 per cent of US adults said they approved of the Supreme Court and 61 per cent disapproved – just after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade.
Approval ratings mean nothing to lifetime appointments. Nobody should hold a position forever. If they wanna keep them there for life, then at least make them subject to review every X years
Theres only one way to end a lifetime appointment, so they should worry if it gets too low.
You can impeach them or imprison them too. They only hold their position “in good behavior”.
Given that Thomas is clearly accepting bribes and his wife is using him to further a coup, I think we can safely assume that means nothing, other than a future weapon against a liberal justice.
How do imprison someone who has the money, connections, and legal knowledge to appeal the case all the way up to themselves.
I wonder what the plantation owners approval ratings were like. We should conduct a study.
My wife and I love each other endlessly and agreed to the whole “until death” thing, but we both hold a firm belief that marriage contracts should have an expiration date at which point the couple can step back and evaluate if they want to continue this union. If not, marriage dissolved, bye.
I hear people say that X isn’t marriage, but I say that nothing should be marriage and EVERYTHING should have a planned expiration date. Except light bulbs, batteries, and puppies.
Kittens, too. Really all baby animals. And most baby humans (also animals, I know. Settle down, Internet).
I don’t see the rabble of the internet coming out in their usual droves to insult you for the babies/animals quip, so I’ll do it for you!
What the fuck, you donkey!? Don’t you understand how is babby formed??? It happens when girl get pragnent!!!
We really need to get these guys out of the office. Why are we caring about impeaching presidents, we need to keep a close eye, catch them doing illegal shit and impeach the supreme court justices. Obviously hold off until the US has a president that can appoint good, fair judges - I don’t believe Trump is capable of that, and Biden is at best borderline capable.
There is supposed to be a separation between the 3 governmental branches within the US. Unfortunately, that’s just not reality. Judges should be elected to terms by the people. We are meant to have a government of the people, by the people, for the people. We the people, are the most important pieces of this equation.
We the people, need to push our agenda on the government instead of the government pushing itself on us.
I’m not talking about any sovereign citizen craziness. I’m just saying it’s 2024, I can pay for my groceries with my cellphone why can’t I chose how my tax dollars are spent?!
I think we’re too stupid to put the hands in such concentrated power. But it may work better if every election we have like 2 judge seats that go into a lower court and then you just cycle them through the Supreme Court on rotation. That way it’s harder to bribe a judge and easier to cut them lose if needed.
It surely does mean something. They don’t have an army to enforce their rulings. They also can get a whole bunch of new judges in. Finally, if a prosecutor gets their shit together they could end up in prison for bribery. And while they can define bribery however they want, see point one.
Go figure. Three of them are Trump-appointed shills, two are Cheney’s Dubya’s and Thomas hanging on from “Vision Thing” Bush times.
Every time he let Cheney call the shots, that was also a decision in itself.
We are rapidly approaching the point where it is an open question as to whether the Supreme Court can make its rulings stick in jurisdictions that don’t fall along the current majority’s ideological bent, and that’s not a place anybody in their right mind wants to go. The question is, are Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett still possessed of enough self-awareness to recognize that and rule accordingly at least some of the time? If not, do Roberts and Gorsuch make a consistent enough voting bloc to swing dicey decisions away from the foaming-at-the-mouth radical right wing of the bench when they might seriously endanger the ongoing credibility of the court as an institution? I’m not super optimistic, but time will tell…
Roberts is about as right-wing as the rest of them, but his philosophy was always to boil the frog, so to speak. If he had his way, abortion would still be unprotected and/or illegal, but it would have taken another 10 or 15 years, and been a death of a thousand cuts, none of which would have been the obvious death knell of Roe v. Wade alone. That way, he could have reached his desired end goal without threatening the legitimacy or respectability of the court.
Gorsuch I do actually have a bit of respect for; he has his principles, even if I don’t always agree with him, and I respect that he has a particular righteous fervor for righting some of the wrongs that America has inflicted on Indian tribes. I just wish that, in the absence of being able to go back in time to 2016 and force the Senate to give Obama’s nominee for his seat an up-or-down vote, that Gorsuch could at least see his way through to being more of a centrist in other ways more often.
We are rapidly approaching the point where it is an open question as to whether the Supreme Court can make its rulings stick in jurisdictions that don’t fall along the current majority’s ideological bent
Recently the most significant refusals to follow court rulings are in jurisdictions that do agree with the court majority’s ideological bent. Alabama’s voting maps fight and Texas’s current border fight being the two biggest ones. At least for now democrats still generally believe in the American system and respect the rule of law.
The governors of solidly blue states will soon enough have citizens who are going to not put up with it.
They can try and fail to make a nationwide abortion ban stick on the west coast.
West coast had an interstate compact during COVID because they knew they could not count on the Feds.
Probably the same thing that happened with Dobbs - ultimately, not much of anything.
It’s sad. But Americans need to stand up for ourselves.
When SCOTUS abolishes Chevron deference later this year and consequently destroys the federal bureaucracy we will be finished. Hopefully the FBI can lean on SCOTUS to prevent that, though it is doubtful they are astute enough to perceive Chevron’s destruction for the national security disaster that it is
Is Hawaii thumbing its nose at a ruling? I assume California is the jurisdiction most likely to eventually say “make us”.
How lame is the concept of “lifetime appointees”?
There’s a reason for it. We may have made the need for it meaningless, but the reasoning is sound.
The functional part (avoiding incentivizing corruption) could be handled just as well by giving them lifelong pay (and financial reporting). The winds of justice being determined by when an old person dies is not a necessary feature.
They could also be limited to serving for say 10 years without the possibility of a second term. Effectively very similar to a lifetime appointment. There’s no re-election so they don’t have to rule on cases in a political manner. This doesn’t solve the problem of approval rating being completely meaningless, but at least there’s some limit on insanity.
It wasn’t, really. We need to stop attributing some kind of infinite foresight and wisdom to the authors of the constitution. The Supreme Court was a bad idea poorly implemented, the senate as the superior house was a fucking terrible idea, and the independent executive is not defensible at this point.
The authors (who, let’s remember, were working with a 17th century philosophy on the nature of humankind that has since been discredited) were operating on entirely different premises, for an entirely different country, and balancing things like slavery and freedom and democracy versus rule by the elite (the elite were justified to rule by their identity as being elites) by trying to come to a middle ground compromise on those and related issues. It’s really kind of crap by modern democratic, political, and philosophical standards. The only reason it hasn’t been addressed is that we’ve become self-aware enough that we’re terrified that US democracy has fallen to the point that we could only do worse than 18th century slaveholders, landlords, and wealthy lawyers.
To make it explicit, the authors thought that a) the rich would put the country’s interests ahead of their own, b) that selfishness would mean people wanted to protect their branch of government rather than their party, and c) that part b would be a sufficient bulwark against demagoguery. They believed in a world where men (and I mean men, specifically, and rich men in particular) were rational actors who would act in their own self-interest.
Don’t get me wrong - they were reading the scholars of their time - but if political and social science hasn’t made advances in the past three centuries we should probably just give it up.
I can’t believe it’s that high.
