A solid majority of Americans say Supreme Court justices are more likely to be guided by their own ideology rather than serving as neutral arbiters of government authority, a new poll finds, as the high court is poised to rule on major cases involving former President Donald Trump and other divisive issues.
The survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 7 in 10 Americans think the high court’s justices are more influenced by ideology, while only about 3 in 10 U.S. adults think the justices are more likely to provide an independent check on other branches of government by being fair and impartial.
The poll reflects the continued erosion of confidence in the Supreme Court, which enjoyed broader trust as recently as a decade ago. It underscores the challenge faced by the nine justices — six appointed by Republican presidents and three by Democrats — of being seen as something other than just another element of Washington’s hyper-partisanship.
7/10 Americans are aware / woke.
The owners, “Stop being aware, go back to being a cog in the machine. Stop reading the founders intent that we can overthrow them. That’s against the law and the law is what we will use to enforce our ideologies upon you.”
The “war against woke” is a war against awareness.
I would say it’s a war against knowledge and critical thinking. Those two things threaten their control and reasoning. Why else fear books or competing ideologies?
It’s one thing for the deer to see headlights coming at it. It’s another for it to know what it means and what it should do.
I think that is what stembolts is saying. Awareness is borne from knowledge and critical thinking.
It’s deeper than that for some. You could allegorically describe that awareness as the fruit of the tree of goodness and evil. Temptation from Satan and they will burn in hell if they accept it.
Too bad the system is designed by the founders so that 70% of the people are guaranteed in perpetuity to always have less than 50% of the power, and thus never get what they want.
This was done to keep slavery in place.
There needs to be some sort of great awakening or something…
/s
I don’t know that this is the case. It’s roughly like 33% of the people say the judges are too liberal because they’re liberal, another 33% say the judges are to conservatives because they’re conservatives, and another 33% don’t have a clue. That ~66% of conservative + liberal aggregated are the 7/10. I wouldn’t call it woke, I would call it opposing opinions on what side the judges are one and the perspective of the respondent.
Is bribery and corruption an ideology?
Yes. It’s called Cronyism.
Then put me in with the 7 out of 10 Americans.
It’s called Cronyism.
Funny way to spell “conservatism”
Have you seen the interest rates on motorhomes nowadays?
Alternate headline: 3/10 Americans are living in fantasy land.
I would suggest 3/10 share their extremists ideology. (Well, the ideology of the majority,)
“Warriors are fine. Nerf warlocks.” -Me, a mage in Vanilla WoW.
Nah it’s 3.5 Right 3.5 left and 3 doesn’t care.
3/10? I would say 9/10
Non-politicized decisions are wacky, the Sackler decision had Gorsuch and Jackson in the majority and Kavanaugh and Sotomayor in the minority.
“Coincidentally,” the abortion and gun rulings are all exactly the same 6-3 teams based on who appointed them.
It’s pretty much settled fact that this Supreme Court puts ideology over impartiality.
They definitely do on the most important issues, however they continue to be impartial on the issues that don’t hit mainstream media (Fox Business Network)
The Sackler decision makes a lot more sense when you see it as the court disagreeing with how to protect the wealthy elite from future cases. Either the novel method here, being allowed to make an agreement that forecloses any future problems; or the traditional method of burying the other side in lawyers until you die.
3 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices agree!
3 out of 10 Americans are lying 🤣
3 out of 10 believe impartiality means agreeing with their ideology.
Or 3 out of 10 Americans are either to dumb or don’t care as long as they have “Freedumb!” and “Gunnses!”
Ideology of “I get mine, you get shit”. Ideology of “I get what I want because I’m on this bench”. Ideology of “what can you do for me?”.
Illegitimate court. Every single ruling by them should be overturned and every citizen should ignore them.
3/10 are hopelessly naive
Maybe they believe that the supreme court is more influenced by money than ideology?
9/9 supreme court justices think you are a worthless little bitch and you can’t do shit to stop them.
Took just 29 mins for a
#bOtH sIdEs
post to show up.
Nobody is trying to say both sides are the same. I am saying the supreme court is not working for us and they know they can get away with it.
Saying 9/9 justices don’t give a shit is disingenuous to say the least. In case you forgot 6 >3, here’s a refresher course on something you should have learned in 1st grade math.
You said all 9 justices thoughts are the same on citizens. I feel this isn’t true compared to how they vote, but maybe you have inside information.
That’s not at all what they’re saying, IHeartCheese is saying you, the citizen, don’t have power over the SCOTUS.
But you’d be right as in both sides are ideological, how else do you think they decide which interpretation to use if not by ideology?
Or are you one of those libs who doesn’t think they have ideology?
This comment really feels like “I’m making all my decisions based on ideology therefore everyone does”
Do you just do things entirely at random with no input from your understanding of the world?
No? Then congrats, you’ve got ideology. I’m gonna assume it’s liberalism, since they’re typically the only ones both dumb and arrogant enough to think they’re not only non-political, but non-ideological.
I am definitely saying the liberals are more likely to be impartial.
liberals tend to favour fairness of outcome, not the conservative fairness of opportunity. Hence they are better able to better put themselves in other people’s shoes and go against their core beliefs (ideology) if that means a failed outcome for other people.
liberals tend to favour fairness of outcome
You’re confusing liberals and socialists. Here’s Liberalism: A counter-history, which examines the history and evolution of liberalism. It contextualizes both the historical promotion of political rights and seeming contradictions like their removal under liberalism.
And you’re not trying to deflect from your original argument you were making.
A text book definition of a word vs what people behind a political party in a specific country are very different things.
I stand by what I’ve said, American conservatives tend to assume that American liberals do what a conservative would have done. In this case be unable to be impartial and make decisions based on their own ideology.
An American liberal is more likely to be able to be impartial than a conservative.
Have a good life.
It’s a big club but you ain’t in it
That seems low.
It’s because Republicans are skewing the numbers. 84% of Democrats and 73% of Independents understand the Supreme Court is a joke.
I bet a chunk of those republicans are mad that the court is “too liberal”
Republicans are the worst
deleted by creator
I don’t know. This is America. I’d say at least 1 out of 10 says, “the supreme what now?”
Most Americans are keyed in on the intricacies of the Court. You can find a few polls showing this like this one where 1/10 of college graduates think Judge Judy has a chair at SCOTUS.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/judge-judy-supreme-court-poll/index.html
The poll used her real name, Judith Sheindlin, but still not a good look.
Using her real name and then reporting the results as “they thought Judge Judy was a SCOTUS justice” seems disingenuous. It’s not like the option that they chose said “Judge Judy”. I wouldn’t even have known that Judith Sheindlin is her real name and not just a generic old lady name.
I would wager the majority of American college grads can’t name all 9 SCOTUS justices (or even all 4 women), and if you’re just guessing then any choice that isn’t obviously wrong (like “Judge Judy”) has around the same chance of being chosen as any other not obviously wrong option.
4 in 10 Americans say SCOTUS makes decisions based on ideology instead of the law, but they’re cool with that because it’s their ideology too.
^^what’s ^^a ^^battle?
Happy cake day, FlyingSquid.
Thanks!
Go read the Heritage Foundation’s founding documents. Literally says in black and white that the way to shift the landscape in your favor is by getting your people on the SC.
Theres no such thing as an impartial person.
I like pineapple on my pizza. Therefore, I rule that everyone else must always eat pineapple on their pizza. The Constitution doesn’t say anything about pizza, so this is totally okay and exactly what the “Founders” wanted.
This is not, and never was, merely an issue of “being an impartial person”… but believing that you can and should be able to force your own partial views onto others - sometimes under threat of state violence - even when those views directly contradict the obvious letter and intent of our Constitution.
“Ideology over impartiality” means “they rule by fiat, rather than by any principle of justice.”
Its not believing they can, they just can.
This is true. It can be strived for, though, and there are strategies to overcome bias, increase impartiality, and identify bias in others. If the United States supreme court (and really its legal system too) had any integrity, it would champion doing so.
I think the best strategy is to assume the worst. Assume that theyll take whatever bribes they can get away with, empower their political party however they can, seek to harm groups theyre hateful towards, etc. Restrict what they can get away with, do not permit any self accountability, keep the roster changing so corrupt roots cant go deep.
If the United States supreme court (and really its legal system too) had any integrity, it would champion doing so.
I think most of the liberal justice would argue the court is and that’s the problem. The keystone of Originalist philosophy is that judges should be impartial and leave policy decisions to the people (except when the constitution prohibits restrictions). To do that they are supposed to follow the original meaning, not the contemporary understanding.
In Living Constitutionalism judges are expected to apply their own personal standards and worry about the practical reproductions (that they for see).
The difference is at least some of us recognize our bias and work to mitigate its effects while the rest of us don’t even know there’s supposed to be a difference.
The other three aren’t paying attention.
I’m curious how many of those 7/10 think it’s a good thing
I don’t think it. I KNOW it.
