Who are the justices again?

August 21, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A recent poll survey has found only 34 percent of Americans can name at least one U.S. Supreme Court justice. I would imagine the same could be said for Indiana’s justices.

Twenty percent of respondents could name Chief Justice John Roberts; 16 percent could name Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas; Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor came in at 13 percent; Anthony Kennedy at 10 percent; Samuel Alito at 5 percent and Elena Kagan at 4 percent.

Roberts’ name was often mentioned in the health care ruling this year, so that may explain why he was named the most. I’m surprised that Clarence Thomas wasn’t named by more people. Back in the early 1990s, I remember his name often being mentioned in the news, thanks to the controversy with Anita Hill during his confirmation process. Maybe the respondents forgot about that.

The survey highlights how little people pay attention to the Supreme Court, except when major decisions are handed down on health care and immigration. But even then, the focus is more on the decision than the people behind the decision. The fact cameras aren’t allowed in the court and the justices lead fairly low-profile lives also lends to the mystery of the court.

The same could be said for Indiana’s justices. Before I joined the staff of this newspaper, I would not have been able to name any members of our high court. When the Barnes ruling came down last year, Justice Steven David’s name became associated with the ruling, only because he was the authoring justice. As far as I can recall, none of the protestors who rallied against the decision called out the other members of the majority for the decision.

Do you think Americans should be able to name all the justices, or at least be able to name several? Is it important that the justices are in the public eye or is it best they keep low profiles?
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT