Public approval of Supreme Court reaches new low
Public approval of major social phenomena, the economy, politicians and appointed officials is always apt to wax and wane with time. For the U.S. Supreme Court, though, public opinion is currently waning like a crescent moon.
May 02, 2012 at 08:17 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Public approval of major social phenomena, the economy, politicians and appointed officials is always apt to wax and wane with time. For the U.S. Supreme Court, though, public opinion is currently waning like a crescent moon.
The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press yesterday released a survey indicating that public opinion of the high court is currently at a quarter-century low. And unlike previous evaluations of the court over the past decade, this time there is very little partisan divide as Republicans, Democrats and independents all responded with relatively unfavorable ratings.
The survey, which Pew conducted from April 4 to 15 and comprised 1,514 adults nationwide, found that just 52 percent of respondents had a favorable opinion of the Supreme Court, which was down from 58 percent in 2010 and the previous low since 1985 of 57 percent in 2005 and 2007. Compounding this decrease is that 29 percent of respondents said they had an unfavorable view of the court, which was just 1 percent lower than the previous high in 2005.
When it came to party lines, 56 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of both Democrats and independents gave the court favorable ratings. Although these numbers may seem OK, they are down sharply from 2009, when shortly after President Obama took office, 70 percent of Republicans, 63 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of independents had favorable opinions of the court.
Pew says that Republican ratings plummeted between 2009 and 2010 with the Obama administration's appointments of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the court. And though Democratic opinions of the court were still relatively high through 2010, they've fallen since.
The research also indicates that Republicans were far happier with the court during the years George W. Bush was in the White House. In 2007, 73 percent of Republicans had a favorable view of the court, compared with just 49 percent of Democrats. Going back to 2001, 80 percent of Republicans had a favorable opinion of the court, compared with 62 percent of Democrats.
One of the factors possibly contributing to the drop in approval ratings is the recent brouhaha over the much-maligned Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), which was the subject of three days of hearings in front of the Supreme Court in late March to determine its constitutionality.
The March 23, 2010, law, which President Obama intended to radically overhaul health care for millions of Americans, has been reviled by Republicans and the masses alike, who claim its scope is too intrusive and is an albatross for states, businesses and the individuals the President intended to help.
According to Pew, the public remains deeply divided over the bill, with 41 percent of people expressing approval compared with 49 percent who disapprove. Of the health care law's supporters, 52 percent view the high court favorably, and 34 percent view it unfavorably. And of the PPACA's critics, 55 percent have a favorable view of the court, and 28 percent have an unfavorable view.
For more about the survey, visit the Pew Research Center's website.
For more InsideCounsel coverage of the PPACA, read:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSenators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anticompetitive Practices, Fees
Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
Trump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readFTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
Trending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250