Americans aren’t impressed with US Supreme Court

July 9, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A recent national phone survey has found that a little more than a quarter of likely U.S. voters think the Supreme Court of the United States is doing a good or excellent job. The same amount rated the justices’ performance as poor.

The Rasmussen Report’s findings aren’t anything new, the organization says, noting that the figures are consistent with findings from the past year. Those polled by Rasmussen Reports have typically given low marks to the high court – the last time good or excellent marks for the justices were above 40 percent was in October 2009.  

A third of those recently polled say the high court is too liberal; 30 percent claim it’s too conservative.

Rasmussen Reports chalks up the low approval rates to the belief by many that the justices base their decisions on their own political agenda rather than the law.

Other highlights from the mid-June survey:

•    Republicans are the most critical of the court’s performance.
•    Women and middle-aged adults have the most positive opinion of the court.
•    Almost half of those polled believe it is fair for a U.S. senator to oppose a Supreme Court nominee because of political ideology or judicial philosophy.
•    Only 33 percent of those polled believe most judges in their rulings follow the letter of the law.

You can view more data from the report at Rasmussen Report’s website.

These surveys asking people about the U.S. justices sound like a broken record. Last year, Reader’s Digest released a list of the “100 Most Trusted People in America” and TV Judge Judith Sheindlin, aka Judge Judy, was more trusted than all of the U.S. justices.  A 2012 Gallup poll said a majority of Republicans think the court is too liberal and more than a third of Democrats saw the court as too conservative.

As many surveys point out, people’s opinions can be swayed by the rulings issued by the justices, as was the case in 2012 with the health care rulings.


 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • hmm
    Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT