PDA

View Full Version : Majority of people believe SCOTUS is split into parties



Common
03-19-2017, 03:27 AM
I believe many Scotus decisions are strictly about Party and not the law or the constitution

A majority of Americans believe that the Supreme Court is split politically, according to a new poll.
The survey, conducted by C-SPAN and PSB (https://www.c-span.org/scotussurvey2017/), found 62% believed justices are "split on political grounds like Congress." Comparatively, 38% said the court acts in a "serious and constitutionally sound manner."
"Three in five Americans believe the high court is split into parties because they are presented no evidence to the contrary," PSB's Robert Green said in a statement. "The absence of TV cameras inside the Supreme Court for oral arguments has allowed others to define the court."
Green said allowing cameras for oral arguments would provide a counterbalance to other sources of information on the Supreme Court, including the president, Congress and the media.
According to the poll, 76% of Americans think the court should allow coverage of its oral arguments.
"The public's perception of the court as partisan, political entity did not form overnight," Green said. "A direct line can be drawn between President Obama lecturing justices during his State of the Union address and later President Trump openly criticizing decisions and judges by name. The high court's decision to remain literally out of sight has hurt rather than helped their reputation and the legitimacy of many of their most controversial decisions."
When it came to the 2016 election, 82% said they took appointments to the court into consideration when they decided who to vote for in November. Additionally, 71% said they are following news about Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/15/supreme-court-nominee-gorsuch-peaked-after-scalia-death/99119780/).
Former solicitors general Donald Verrilli and Paul Clement addressed the public's perception of the judicial branch during an event at Georgetown University Law Center on Friday. Verrilli, who stepped down last year after serving as solicitor general under Barack Obama for five years, called such beliefs a "shame." They have sharp divisions over their commitments to judicial philosophies and approach to law, not politics.
"They're sincerely held beliefs, and they're just different," he said.
Chief Justice John Roberts has worked hard to show that the court isn't political, it's about law, he said. "I think they're trying to push back on it."
He noted that some cases on technology and privacy — like the 2014 case in which the court unanimously ruled that cellphones and smartphones can't be searched without a warrant during arrests — are among the most consequential the court is considering these days, and they don't break down ideologically.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/03/17/poll-majority-people-believe-scotus-split-into-parties/99300156/

patrickt
03-19-2017, 06:07 AM
I believe they are split on ideology but not on party. I don't think there is a political party at present that feels the Supreme Court should concern itself with determining Constitutionality. There is no right to an abortion in the Constitution but there was a majority of people on the Supreme Court who wanted abortion to be legal across the U.S. It was really quite simple.

The Constitution was written to form a government and, more importantly, to protect the people from the government. That makes the Constitution anathema to those who believe government should be unrestricted. An ideology involving an unrestricted federal government can be assigned to either party but for the last 75 years, it's been the liberals.

There are those who believe that government power is inherently evil and must be controlled by the people. Then there are those who think people are inherently evil and must be controlled by the government.

DGUtley
03-19-2017, 06:13 AM
I think it is ideologically split. Very much so. Even to the point of intellectual dishonesty. There is no way the two ACA decisions can be justified on honest juris prudence. It is sad. HC would be President if the SC was middle of the road.

“When you find yourself in the Supreme Court adverse to the Little Sisters of the Poor you might consider whether maybe you have pushed a little too far.”https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/07/the-supreme-court-oral-argument-that-cost-democrats-the-presidency/?postshare=7581481148562616&tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.cd80f9abb7da

Common
03-19-2017, 06:20 AM
I used Party loosely, I believe it is ideology and not party. However its either party that appoints them

Bethere
03-19-2017, 06:53 AM
I used Party loosely, I believe it is ideology and not party. However its either party that appoints them

The gop has controlled the supreme court continuously since 1969.

If you are opposed to an Ideological supreme court you have no one to blame but the Republican party.

Bethere
03-19-2017, 06:54 AM
I believe they are split on ideology but not on party. I don't think there is a political party at present that feels the Supreme Court should concern itself with determining Constitutionality. There is no right to an abortion in the Constitution but there was a majority of people on the Supreme Court who wanted abortion to be legal across the U.S. It was really quite simple.

The Constitution was written to form a government and, more importantly, to protect the people from the government. That makes the Constitution anathema to those who believe government should be unrestricted. An ideology involving an unrestricted federal government can be assigned to either party but for the last 75 years, it's been the liberals.

There are those who believe that government power is inherently evil and must be controlled by the people. Then there are those who think people are inherently evil and must be controlled by the government.

See post #5.

DGUtley
03-19-2017, 07:00 AM
See post #5.

Conservatives fall in love.
Liberals fall in line.

Newpublius
03-19-2017, 07:42 AM
I think it is ideologically split. Very much so. Even to the point of intellectual dishonesty. There is no way the two ACA decisions can be justified on honest juris prudence. It is sad. HC would be President if the SC was middle of the road.

“When you find yourself in the Supreme Court adverse to the Little Sisters of the Poor you might consider whether maybe you have pushed a little too far.”https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/07/the-supreme-court-oral-argument-that-cost-democrats-the-presidency/?postshare=7581481148562616&tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.cd80f9abb7da

Exactly, its a deterministic claptrap. The judge from the 9th circuit in his dissenting opinion chastised criticism of the judicial branch itself. Perhaps they should have some insight into how they're being viewed. I feel like writing him and saying, "You're losing our respect because we recognize you for the deterministic claptrap that you are "

Bo-4
03-19-2017, 08:04 AM
I believe many Scotus decisions are strictly about Party and not the law or the constitution

I believe you are correct but would change "many" to MOST.

AeonPax
03-19-2017, 08:26 AM
`
`
A poll, is a poll, is a poll, is a poll....... Same applies to surveys.
`

Methodology Penn Schoen Berland (PSB) conducted online interviews from March 7-9, 2017 among 1,032 U.S. likely voters. The margin of error for this study is +/- 3.05% at the 95% confidence level and larger for subgroups. Some percentages may add to more or less than 100% due to rounding.
`
Something to talk about for 5 minutes but hardly conclusive.

Adelaide
03-19-2017, 08:45 AM
The Supreme Court is definitely politicized and activist, but so are a lot of federal judges in general. It is really problematic that politics is involved and/or that you can tell how the Justices will vote on many issues based on who appointed them and their loyalty to that party thereafter. Every so often, a Justice will surprise you but generally not. It would have been useful if the framers had just added a few more sentences to Article III... such as qualifications and disqualifying characteristics for appointment to the Supreme Court.

donttread
03-19-2017, 08:54 AM
I believe many Scotus decisions are strictly about Party and not the law or the constitution

A majority of Americans believe that the Supreme Court is split politically, according to a new poll.
The survey, conducted by C-SPAN and PSB (https://www.c-span.org/scotussurvey2017/), found 62% believed justices are "split on political grounds like Congress." Comparatively, 38% said the court acts in a "serious and constitutionally sound manner."
"Three in five Americans believe the high court is split into parties because they are presented no evidence to the contrary," PSB's Robert Green said in a statement. "The absence of TV cameras inside the Supreme Court for oral arguments has allowed others to define the court."
Green said allowing cameras for oral arguments would provide a counterbalance to other sources of information on the Supreme Court, including the president, Congress and the media.
According to the poll, 76% of Americans think the court should allow coverage of its oral arguments.
"The public's perception of the court as partisan, political entity did not form overnight," Green said. "A direct line can be drawn between President Obama lecturing justices during his State of the Union address and later President Trump openly criticizing decisions and judges by name. The high court's decision to remain literally out of sight has hurt rather than helped their reputation and the legitimacy of many of their most controversial decisions."
When it came to the 2016 election, 82% said they took appointments to the court into consideration when they decided who to vote for in November. Additionally, 71% said they are following news about Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/15/supreme-court-nominee-gorsuch-peaked-after-scalia-death/99119780/).
Former solicitors general Donald Verrilli and Paul Clement addressed the public's perception of the judicial branch during an event at Georgetown University Law Center on Friday. Verrilli, who stepped down last year after serving as solicitor general under Barack Obama for five years, called such beliefs a "shame." They have sharp divisions over their commitments to judicial philosophies and approach to law, not politics.
"They're sincerely held beliefs, and they're just different," he said.
Chief Justice John Roberts has worked hard to show that the court isn't political, it's about law, he said. "I think they're trying to push back on it."
He noted that some cases on technology and privacy — like the 2014 case in which the court unanimously ruled that cellphones and smartphones can't be searched without a warrant during arrests — are among the most consequential the court is considering these days, and they don't break down ideologically.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/03/17/poll-majority-people-believe-scotus-split-into-parties/99300156/

How could any sane person believe otherwise when the proof is right in front of us. We need textualist, such as Trump has appointed not party lap dogs .

Bethere
03-19-2017, 10:17 AM
Conservatives fall in love.
Liberals fall in line.

With all due respect to Honest Dave, half of his party would rather die than admit that they are Republicans.

You deserve better teammates.


And yet membership of said hated party remains incredibly consistent. Someone on your team is not telling the truth.

62 million voted for bush.
61 million voted for romney.
60 million voted for mccain.
62 million voted for trump.

Not exactly a display of independent behavior, is it?

That brand of hardcore political consistency only happens in an incredibly partisan environment. We see evidence of such behavior here. Trump is crazy popular at tPF and yet only a handful, mostly my personal friends, admit to even being Republican.

Keith Richards can claim he Isn't a junkie, but his actions say otherwise. Being a Republican is a similar ethical experience. If you act like one, you are one. I don't care what you claim you are.

And here, we have ALL of said non Republicans pushing falsely the notion that Democrats are responsible for judicial activism when in fact democrats haven't controlled the supreme court in 47 years.

Why can't we negotiate with honest Dave types directly? Why must everything be filtered through the dishonest lens of false anarchists, would be libertarians, and freedom caucus mental midgets like Jim Jordan?

In closing, conservatives "fall in line", too. That's what Republicans do. Your vote, you actual Republican, was up in the air last year. The conservatives who would rather die than admit that they are Republicans? They were locked in before the convention.

That's partisan behavior. Yours was independent. Honest people like you and @Docthehun (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1986) hold the key. You always have, my friend.

Thanks for listening.

Green Arrow
03-19-2017, 01:35 PM
It basically is split conservative v. liberal, with one swing vote (two if you count Chief Justice Roberts' recent foray into swing voting).

Personally, I'd rather see it split based on judicial philosophy. Judicial activism and judicial restraint, loose constructionism and strict constructionism, living constitution and original intent. I think it would make cases much more interesting and it removes the partisan element.