By John Q. Hosedrinker 
More than half of Americans disapprove of the Supreme Court’s performance, according to a Washington Post-Ipsos poll. Additionally, a significant portion of the public, 46 percent, believes the Court’s decisions on President Donald Trump’s policies are driven by ideology instead of legal principles. This sentiment suggests widespread public dissatisfaction with the institution’s impartiality.
Read the original article here
It’s interesting to see a poll indicating that nearly half of Americans believe the Supreme Court bases its rulings on politics. This sentiment suggests a significant portion of the population perceives the highest court in the land not as an impartial arbiter of justice, but as a body influenced by partisan considerations.
The idea that the Supreme Court has become overtly political isn’t new. Many express the view that this trend has become particularly apparent in recent years, with some pointing to specific justices and their long tenures as evidence of a system ripe for political influence. The length of time some justices serve, for instance, is a recurring point of discussion, raising questions about accountability and the potential for outdated perspectives to shape contemporary legal interpretations.
When the Court’s decisions consistently align with the agendas of one political party over another, it’s hard for many to see anything other than political motivation at play. The argument is that if the law were truly unambiguous, justices wouldn’t consistently divide along the same ideological lines. This perception leads to the conclusion that justices might be picking a ruling first and then seeking to justify it with existing legal precedent, even if it means overturning established laws.
The intense scrutiny during the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees is also seen as a telling sign. The fact that political parties fight so hard to fill vacant seats, and that nominees are often pressed on their views regarding controversial political issues, only reinforces the belief that the appointment process itself is fundamentally political. It appears to be a strategic effort to stack the court with justices who will advance a particular political agenda.
For many, the Supreme Court has surrendered its legitimacy and respect by becoming a perceived tool of political parties. The notion of calling “balls and strikes” seems hollow when the umpire is seen as wearing a team jersey. This sentiment is fueled by decisions that are viewed as inconsistent, partisan, and often disregard established law and precedent, effectively legislating from the bench.
A significant concern for a substantial portion of the public is that the other half of Americans aren’t even paying attention to the Supreme Court’s actions. There’s a feeling that many are either unaware of the Court’s existence or its significant impact on their lives. This lack of awareness or engagement is seen as a troubling aspect, suggesting a widespread disconnect from a branch of government that wields immense power.
The perception of corruption also surfaces in discussions about the Court. Beyond political ideology, there are accusations that some justices are influenced by financial incentives, citing reports of lavish gifts and unexplained financial benefits. These concerns about potential bribery further erode trust in the Court’s impartiality.
The very structure of the Supreme Court’s appointment and tenure system is also a target of criticism. The idea of justices serving for life is questioned, with some proposing alternative systems, such as jury duty-like selection or fixed, staggered terms. The aim is to prevent any single party from dominating the Court for extended periods and to encourage a more regular infusion of diverse perspectives.
Some suggest that the current system, deeply entrenched in a two-party dynamic, is inherently flawed for appointing judges. The constant “tug of war” between parties to make unilateral appointments is seen as a direct path to political bias, not an apolitical judiciary. The belief is that a multi-party system, requiring compromise, would naturally lead to more intellectually honest and less politically driven judicial appointments.
Ultimately, the sentiment is that the Supreme Court is not merely interpreting the law; it’s actively shaping it through a political lens. The fact that nearly half of Americans hold this view is a significant indicator of a deep-seated distrust in one of the nation’s most crucial institutions. This perceived politicization raises questions about the future of justice and the role of the Supreme Court in a democratic society.