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.

  • Thrashy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    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…

      • Thrashy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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.

          • beardown@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Maybe I see Roberts as a centrist because he puts the Court’s legitimacy ahead of his personal politics.

            To dumb it down further It’s really the difference between lawful evil and neutral evil or chaotic evil. Or the difference between longtermism and shortermism.

            Roberts wants ultimate outcomes that are as radically right wing as those desired by Alito. The difference is that Alito wants those outcome to occur now. Roberts wants those outcomes to happen gradually over decades. This is because Roberts is afraid of blowback; Alito is aware of this argument, but he believes that the power of the Supreme Court and the Republican Party has been consolidated so absolutely that such fears of blowback are unreasonable and illusory.

            The metaphor of boiling the frog gradually over a long period Vs dropping the frog into already boiling water is apt. You place a frog into a pot of room temperature water and then gradually turn up the heat until it is boiling. This prevents the frog from jumping out of the pot, something it physically could do at any time, because it doesn’t perceive the graduality of the temperature changes. Alito et al understand the wisdom of slowly boiling the frog; they just believe that the cooking pot we are using is miles deep such that it would be impossible for any frog to jump out - and that we have also chained on a heavy lid to the pot that would also prevent frogs from escaping. We are that frog, and Alito believes that the GOP has fully constructed that enormous pot and lid. Under that worldview, there is no meaningful negative consequence for SCOTUS making drastic revisionist decisions whenever they want. The decisions may radically overturn precedent, but they are nonetheless unchallengeable.

            It is our job as citizens to prove Alito wrong. If we don’t then our standard of living will rapidly deteriorate even more radically than it already has since 1981. SCOTUS will remake the United States completely, and make it an absolute dictatorship of the billionaire. That must be opposed

            • aesthelete@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              The metaphor of boiling the frog gradually over a long period Vs dropping the frog into already boiling water is apt. You place a frog into a pot of room temperature water and then gradually turn up the heat until it is boiling. This prevents the frog from jumping out of the pot, something it physically could do at any time, because it doesn’t perceive the graduality of the temperature changes.

              Ima let you finish, but they’ve done this experiment and the frog jumps out. It also becomes increasingly active as the temperature rises.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

              And frogs are cool so I get sick of the “frog boiling” slander, though I understand the metaphor.

              • beardown@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                I understand that it isn’t what is done when cooking frogs. It’s a metaphor, and i used it only for its value of analogy

                • DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  You were literally like a bull in a china shop with your response.

                  You were respectful and answered nicely. See Myth Busters. 😉

                  • beardown@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    You were literally like a bull in a china shop with your response.

                    You were respectful and answered nicely

                    What?

    • Lemmeenym@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • beardown@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          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

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Is Hawaii thumbing its nose at a ruling? I assume California is the jurisdiction most likely to eventually say “make us”.