By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A recent poll indicates a majority of Americans disapprove of the Supreme Court following a term marked by rulings that eroded civil rights and expanded presidential powers. Liberal justices maintained positive favorability ratings, while all conservative justices received net negative ratings, with Ketanji Brown Jackson being the most favored. In response to these concerns, Democratic lawmakers have introduced legislation aimed at increasing judicial ethics, transparency, and potentially limiting justice tenures.
Read the original article here
A recent poll reveals that a significant majority of Americans are expressing disapproval of the Supreme Court, particularly following its most recent term. This sentiment appears to stem from a growing perception that the court has become increasingly politicized, with decisions leaning heavily in favor of conservative ideologies. The data suggests a stark divide in public opinion regarding the individual justices.
The survey indicates that every liberal justice on the bench enjoys a positive favorability rating among the public. Justices like Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson received net-positive approval ratings, with Sonia Sotomayor leading the liberal bloc with an impressive +11 points. This suggests that the public views these justices favorably, aligning with their perceived judicial philosophies.
In sharp contrast, all six conservative justices experienced net-negative favorability ratings. These ratings ranged from Samuel Alito’s -7 points to Amy Coney Barrett’s -15 points. Even Chief Justice John Roberts did not escape this trend, garnering a -11 point favorability rating. This widespread disapproval of the conservative justices fuels the notion that their rulings are not resonating with the general populace.
A core concern articulated by many is the perceived departure from the Constitution by conservative justices, with some believing they are allowing presidents to circumvent its tenets. There are specific accusations that certain justices voted in ways that would permit the president to end birthright citizenship via executive order, and even to unilaterally overturn the Constitution itself. This fuels a belief that the court is no longer a neutral arbiter of law but a partisan body actively undermining democratic principles.
This distrust has led to calls for significant structural changes to the Supreme Court, including the expansion of its membership. The idea is that a larger court, potentially with more liberal representation, would be necessary to counteract what is seen as a radical right-wing agenda and to ensure the continued functioning of democracy. Without such interventions, some express deep concern about the long-term health and stability of the nation.
Furthermore, the concept of lifelong appointments for judges is being questioned as a potential source of the court’s perceived political bias. The argument is that such permanence insulates justices from public accountability, allowing them to enact laws without fear of reprisal or consequence for their decisions. This has prompted discussions about implementing term limits, perhaps a maximum of 10 years, as a means to introduce more accountability and potentially reduce entrenched political leanings.
The idea of removing judges with clear political biases from consideration is also gaining traction. This suggestion reflects a desire for a judiciary that is perceived as impartial and dedicated to the rule of law, rather than to a specific political agenda. The current situation, as viewed by critics, has empowered individuals who are seen as untrustworthy and dangerous, leading to a significant erosion of democratic norms.
The current state of affairs is viewed by some as the creation of a “shitty third world theocratic cesspool,” a stark depiction of the negative future they believe these rulings are paving the way for. This sentiment highlights the deep disappointment and anger felt by those who disagree with the court’s recent trajectory. The perception is that the justices are acting with impunity, unconcerned with public opinion or the broader consequences of their actions.
The notion that the Supreme Court is no longer serving as a check and balance within the government is a recurring theme. When the court is seen as favoring the president, or any particular political party, the essential function of independent judicial review is compromised. This leads to concerns that the court is effectively “bought and paid for,” its decisions influenced by external pressures rather than a commitment to justice.
It is argued that the justices operate in a world detached from the realities faced by ordinary citizens. Their lifetime appointments, coupled with the potential for lucrative benefits, create a sense of insulation from public concerns. This disconnect, it is suggested, makes them indifferent to public opinion, rendering polls such as this one largely irrelevant to their decision-making processes.
The disconnect between public sentiment and the court’s perceived actions is further underscored by observations that many Americans are disengaged from the court’s proceedings. While polls might indicate disapproval, the argument is made that this sentiment doesn’t always translate into the voting booth, leading to the very consequences that many find objectionable. This paradox of public opinion versus electoral action is seen as a critical factor in the current political landscape.
The lack of robust voting participation is identified as a significant contributing factor to the current situation. If the majority of Americans are indeed disapproving of the court’s direction, but this sentiment doesn’t lead to greater civic engagement, then the court will continue to operate without significant public pressure. This creates a dangerous situation where a potentially unpopular judiciary can maintain its influence.
There is an urgent plea for the public to “wise up” and recognize the court as the “last institution standing between us and autocracy.” This framing elevates the stakes considerably, portraying the court’s decisions not merely as policy disagreements but as existential threats to democratic governance. The fear is that inaction will allow the country to slide towards authoritarianism.
The idea that the court has become a “5-layer Court” or even a “Bean and Cheese Court” reflects a humorous but also critical view of its perceived decline in stature and seriousness. This kind of commentary, while lighthearted, points to a deeper concern about the court’s credibility and the respect it commands. The GOP is accused of making a “mockery of justice,” further cementing the perception of a politicized and compromised judiciary.
While some argue that a court should not be political and should not care about polls, the current data suggests that the public perceives it as highly political. The disconnect lies in whether this perception is accurate or whether the court is simply upholding its interpretation of the law, which may not align with popular opinion. The contention is that the court has indeed become excessively political, to the detriment of its intended role.
Some commentary suggests that the poll’s framing might be misleading, with “50% isn’t a majority.” This highlights a technical point that the concept of a “majority” requires more than half of the respondents. However, the underlying sentiment of widespread disapproval, even if not a strict majority, remains a significant takeaway. The argument is also made that it’s good that both sides don’t always get what they want, reinforcing the ideal of a balanced judiciary.
A strong counterargument suggests that most Americans simply do not care about the Supreme Court’s actions. This perspective posits that the demographics of those who participate in such polls are skewed towards a particular political leaning, rendering the results unrepresentative of the broader population. This raises questions about the validity and interpretation of poll data in general.
However, other analyses of the poll data reveal more nuanced perceptions of individual justices. For instance, Samuel Alito might have a better rating than Amy Coney Barrett, even if both are viewed negatively overall. This suggests that public disapproval isn’t monolithic and can vary based on specific justices and their perceived actions or ideologies. The specific ratings for Clarence Thomas also emerge as a point of interest, indicating a net negative favorability.
The debate also touches upon the interpretation of the Constitution itself. Some argue that “GOP nominated judges are usually more originalist who side with the Constitution more than their feelings.” This view contrasts with the idea that conservative justices are “ignoring the Constitution.” The discussion emphasizes the importance of objective analysis and avoiding preconceived notions when evaluating judicial decisions.
A critical point raised is the court’s alleged use of “shadow dockets” to issue significant rulings without full legal or constitutional scrutiny. This practice, if accurate, would further contribute to the perception of a court operating outside of established norms and potentially favoring specific political outcomes. The impact of these rulings, especially those perceived to favor particular political figures or parties, is a major driver of public discontent.
The issue of lifetime appointments is again brought up as a concern regarding accountability. While intended to ensure independence, the lack of a mechanism for removal can be problematic when there is widespread public dissatisfaction with the court’s performance. This leads to a sense of helplessness and frustration among those who believe the court has lost its way.
The notion that the Supreme Court has historically been problematic is also presented, suggesting that the current level of perceived corruption might not be as unprecedented as it seems. However, the current situation is seen as particularly egregious, with accusations of bias and influence from political figures and wealthy donors. The influence of individuals like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel is cited as an example of external forces potentially shaping judicial outcomes.
The complexity of public opinion and its impact on judicial matters is highlighted by the idea that “bots on one side of us, paid foreign accounts on the other with a sprinkling of MAGATs for just enough authenticity to fool the people that aren’t paying attention.” This suggests that public perception itself can be manipulated, further complicating the assessment of the court’s standing. Ultimately, the poll reflects a deep-seated concern about the Supreme Court’s direction and its perceived role in American democracy.