I thought this was an interesting, albeit very biased, article.
Gallup reported that the court’s job approval rating had dropped 9 points since July, to 40% of Americans approving of the job the justices are doing.
That poll was conducted in early September after the order declining to block the Texas abortion law and after it also had rejected Biden administration initiatives on US asylum policy and an eviction moratorium during the pandemic.
For the many years the court issued judgments in favor of the left they were a non political Oracle acquiring their judgments directly from the heavens. Of recent, they have become a dangerous political cabal.
Don’t confuse “favor of the left” with “favor of the majority.” When the court rules against the popular opinion people get upset. That’s when they’re seen in a negative light.
Cases go to the Supreme Court because there is a question as to their legality/constitutionality. If it was already established there wouldn’t be a reason for a court decision. This means the court is asked to interpret the constitution, existing laws and precedent to make a decision. When there is interpretation there is opinion. Opinions as to legal matters are not held only by the justices. When the opinions of the justices do not agree with the opinions of the public, those members of the public may be upset. When those opinions do not agree with the opinions of the majority of the population, the majority of the population may be upset.
Public opinion has nothing to do with hegemony or laws or constitution. It has everything to do with public satisfaction and approval of the courts and their decisions.
The problem is that the court has no power to enforce. Bluntly, we follow the rulings because we believe in the integrity of the court. If the court loses that good will, they lose credibility.
And for the record, the recent protestations of non-partisanship, especially from Barrett, are balloon juice.
What was the life expectancy or modal age of death at the time the Constitution and lifelong terms were established? What was the average term length of a justice in the 1800s compared to now?
And what was the rate of social change or technological change back then? Wouldn’t be opposed to appointing a new bench of them every year myself. As long as it begins in a future and not the current admin so as to remove partisan advantage.
What does that have to do with whether or not they rule based on politics? If they’re in their position for five years, fifty, or even five hundred, it should make no difference. In theory, anyway.
