Court Opinion

Public opinion of the Supreme Court remains quite positive, all things considered, but it seems that the number of people who think it's too far right has taken a big jump since Roberts and Alito signed on -- 31 percent now say the court is too conservative as opposed to just 19 percent before Bush made his nomination. The number who say it's just right has declined from 55 percent to 47 percent.

This is, I think, basically grist for the mill that says the public cares about the outcomes of SCOTUS rulings and not, as Roe-backlash theorists often posit, the legal craftsmanship. I've never heard anyone try to seriously maintain that John Roberts is a worse drafted of legal opinions than was Sandra Day O'Connor, he's just further right in his views, and so public opinion moves.

Comments

Interesting that it's 47 to 31 in favor.

My intuition would have led me to think it's more even.

Posted by stm177 | July 29, 2007 8:06 AM

but the charge against Roberts is not that he reaches results that are too far right.

It is that he is dishonest, on two fronts:

1) his decisions to date have not accorded with his promises to the Senate, and
2) his decisions to date have involved radically overturning standing precedents while pretending that precedent has been respected.

Posted by Count Cant | July 29, 2007 8:58 AM

Promises to the Senate? Pah! Misleading a bunch of professional liars and dissemblers is the only course an honest man can take. You, go, boy.

Posted by Ross von Peppington | July 29, 2007 9:17 AM

This is, I think, basically grist for the mill that says the public cares about the outcomes of SCOTUS rulings and not, as Roe-backlash theorists often posit, the legal craftsmanship

Well, Matthew, do you endorse this view you attribute to the public? If so, judicial review becomes incredibly hard to justify, since the SCOTUS is never going to be as responsive to public opinion as Congress. You end up with Bork's worldview.

If not, then this is just like the fact that the public will enthusiastically agree to all kinds of crazy stuff about civil liberties. It is a reason that democracy needs to be tempered by something else, and says nothing against Roberts.

I always find Matthew's comments on law to be him at his weakest.

Posted by Pithlord | July 29, 2007 10:03 AM

This is, I think, basically grist for the mill that says the public cares about the outcomes of SCOTUS rulings and not, as Roe-backlash theorists often posit, the legal craftsmanship.

I think you have to distinguish between short-term outcomes and long-term outcomes. The public, I suspect, wants rulings that are well-justified, as judged by lawyers that they trust, because it worries about the long-term consequences of badly justified rulings: no one wants to wake up in twenty years and find dogs and cats living together in sin.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 29, 2007 10:15 AM

grist for the mill that says the public cares about the outcomes of SCOTUS rulings

It has nothing to do with any actual rulings. I mean, which rulings do you think the public thinks are so wrog - the partial birth abortion ruling? No, the public supports the ban on partial birth abortion. The change in public opinion is a result of the continuing effect of the Democrat and MSM demonization of Roberts and Alito, which have nothing to do with the outcomes of their rulings and everything to do with the person that appointed them.

Posted by Al | July 29, 2007 4:27 PM

An interesting sidelight. The question as published in the Post on PBA stated that the ruling contained an exemption if the life of the mother was endangered. That was not the ruling. If the question had been asked correctly, I suspect that a majority in the survey would not have favored the Court's decision.
H

Posted by Hankstone | July 29, 2007 5:41 PM

The change in public opinion is a result of the continuing effect of the Democrat and MSM demonization of Roberts and Alito, which have nothing to do with the outcomes of their rulings and everything to do with the person that appointed them.

I don't know why the Democrats or the media have to play a part in your story, Al. Having learned to dislike and distrust Bush, the public feels the same way about his minions. Seems like a pretty natural method of appraisal.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 29, 2007 5:48 PM

What the public cares about SCOTUS has absolutely no relevance to a government which is supposed to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity".

Example: The partial-birth abortion ruling may be supported by the public but that doesn't make it right. If we intend to jeopardize our personal liberties in a public vote then this is no longer the country established to secure the right that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Further, and this may come up soon, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito have both written that there is no right to abortion in the US Constitution. These writings display a fundamental ignorance of the fact that the US Constitution is not a compendium of citizen rights, it is a legal document designed to protect our liberty, not remove it, and there is no more fundamental liberty than controlling our own surgical procedures.

Liberty, in the absence of harm to others, should not be an election or polling issue.

Posted by Don Bacon | July 29, 2007 6:58 PM

Our Spartan Supremes shall announce the rule
Minority orphans must eat gruel.
It's good for them, not a bit cruel
Things could be much worse.

Yes, things could be much worse, my boys
Things could be much worse.

Instead, let us all delight
Roberts drafted the ruling just so right
His eloquence is dazzling bright
If only it were verse.

Yes, if only it were verse, my boys
If only it were verse.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | July 29, 2007 9:54 PM

It has nothing to do with any actual rulings. I mean, which rulings do you think the public thinks are so wrog - the partial birth abortion ruling

Well, since more than 40& of the public disapproves of the ruling it's not surprising that some fraction of that sees the Court as more conservative. But what I really enjoy is Republics like Al claiming that noting the banal fact that Alito and Roberts are doctrinaire, party-line reactionaries is supposed to be "demonization." Hey, can't argue with that!

Posted by Scott Lemieux | July 30, 2007 1:17 AM

I've never heard anyone try to seriously maintain that John Roberts is a worse drafted of legal opinions than was Sandra Day O'Connor, he's just further right in his views, and so public opinion moves..

Recall that we live in a country where only about 1% of people can even name all nine members of the Supreme Court. It's rather silly to treat public opinion as anything resembling a meaningful indicator here.

Posted by John Doe | July 30, 2007 8:57 AM

Recall that we live in a country where only about 1% of people can even name all nine members of the Supreme Court.

Big deal. Could the Supreme Court justices name 1% of the American population?

Posted by Wesley | July 30, 2007 9:48 AM

"1) his decisions to date have not accorded with his promises to the Senate, and
2) his decisions to date have involved radically overturning standing precedents while pretending that precedent has been respected."

Which decisions fail to accord with which promises?

Which decisions involve radically overturning standing precedent?

I hope you aren't talking about the PBA decision (which is much in line with Roe, even if it isn't in line with the every-abortion-all-the-time concept that Democrats seem to think Roe stood for) or the school decision (which agrees with Brown that bussing is a drastic remedy which should only be employed when there was actual discrimination in a school district).

Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw | July 30, 2007 4:13 PM