Skip to main content

Americans Disapprove of Supreme Court More Post-ACA

A new New York Times poll finds that Americans' opinion of the Supreme Court fell in the aftermath of the health care decision:
The nation is now evenly divided, with 41 percent of Americans saying they approve of the job the court is doing and the same share voicing disapproval, according to a new poll conducted by The New York Times and CBS News. In a poll a few weeks before the health care decision, the court’s approval rating was 44 percent and its disapproval rating 36 percent.
More than half of Americans said the decision in the health care case was based mainly on the justices’ personal or political views. Only about 3 in 10 of them said the decision in the case was based mainly on legal analysis.
This surprise anyone else? If the Court had truly voted along it's political preferences, I would have expected a 5-4 decision to at least toss the mandate out, if not strike down the entire law. But Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the four liberal justices to uphold it.

The Chief Justice did side with his conservative colleagues on the activity/inactivity argument, but in the end, he ruled that the penalty was just another word for a tax and thus the mandate was constitutional. Now, I personally believe this was a calculated move by the Chief Justice and that he expected the Court to gain credibility for it, allowing him to rule more conservatively on future cases. Thus, I do think that his decision was politically motivated.

But does the American public follow the Court close enough to agree with me? I doubt it. So does that mean that the public believes this is actually a liberal court? I don't believe that either, at least not after Citizens United.

And yet, now Americans have a worse opinion of the Court and only 3 in 10 say the decision was decided on legal analysis. Of course, it's just one poll and there's no reason to read too much into it. Many Americans may assume that the Court voted politically on it due to the highly political nature of the law. But it is still a bit surprising.

In the end though, the poll actually excites me a bit, if for the wrong reasons. I want Americans to have faith in the highest court in the country, but if the Chief Justice's plan was to vote liberally on this case in order to restore the Court's credibility and allow him to vote more conservatively on future cases, then I'm happy to see that the plan is not working. If that means he cannot vote as conservatively as he wishes in the future, then let the public keep showing its dissatisfaction with the Court.

Comments

  1. I have heard it said elsewhere that Roberts voted the way he did so that he may vote conservatively in the future. I don't understand how that factors into a Supreme Court Justice's decisions. What prevents him from voting however he likes? Help me out here.

    -Noah Manson Prescott

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, the argument was that the SCOTUS had been so hackishly conservative that it was becoming a wing of the RNC, and thus discrediting it among the broad population. Now that Roberts was the key vote on upholding Obama's signature accomplishment, he's got a lot more credibility as an independent thinker, not just some kind of Fox News apparatchik.

    My personal thought is that he was prepared to strike down the mandate, but the fact that the rest of the conservatives wanted to strike down the rest of the law entirely--even parts that had nothing to do with the core of Obamacare, using a bizarre "Christmas tree doctrine"--was a bridge too far.

    Who knows, really.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Did Reality Winner Leak to the Intercept?

So Reality Winner, former NSA contractor, is in federal prison for leaking classified information — for five years and three months, the longest sentence of any whistleblower in history. She gave documents on how Russia had attempted to hack vendors of election machinery and software to The Intercept , which completely bungled basic security procedures (according to a recent New York Times piece from Ben Smith, the main fault lay with Matthew Cole and Richard Esposito ), leading to her capture within hours. Winner recently contracted COVID-19 in prison, and is reportedly suffering some lingering aftereffects. Glenn Greenwald has been furiously denying that he had anything at all to do with the Winner clusterfuck, and I recently got in an argument with him about it on Twitter. I read a New York story about Winner, which clearly implies that she was listening to the Intercepted podcast of March 22, 2017 , where Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill expressed skepticism about Russia actually b

On Refusing to Vote for Bloomberg

Billionaire Mike Bloomberg is attempting to buy the Democratic nomination. With something like $400 million in personal spending so far, that much is clear — and it appears to be working at least somewhat well, as he is nearing second place in national polls. I would guess that he will quickly into diminishing returns, but on the other hand spending on this level is totally unprecedented. At this burn rate he could easily spend more than the entire 2016 presidential election cost both parties before the primary is over. I published a piece today outlining why I would not vote for Bloomberg against Trump (I would vote for Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, or Biden), even though I live in a swing state. This got a lot of "vote blue no matter who" people riled up . They scolded me and demanded that I pre-commit to voting for Bloomberg should he win the nomination. The argument as I understand it is to try to make it as likely as possible that whatever Democrat wins t

Varanus albigularis albigularis

That is the Latin name for the white-throated monitor lizard , a large reptile native to southern Africa that can grow up to two meters long (see pictures of one at the Oakland Zoo here ). In Setswana, it's called a "gopane." I saw one of these in my village yesterday on the way back from my run. Some kids from school found it in the riverbed and tortured it to death, stabbing out its eyes, cutting off its tail, and gutting it which finally killed it. It seemed to be a female as there were a bunch of round white things I can only imagine were eggs amongst the guts. I only arrived after it was already dead, but they described what had happened with much hilarity and re-enactment. When I asked why they killed it, they said it was because it would eat their chickens and eggs, which is probably true, and because it sucks blood from people, which is completely ridiculous. It might bite a person, but not unless threatened. It seems roughly the same as killing wolves tha