this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
491 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19072 readers
4075 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Supreme Court faces a legitimacy crisis at the dawn of its new term, and a majority of voters support reforms such as a binding code of ethics and term limits.

A new POLITICO | Morning Consult poll shows three-in-four voters want the justices bound to an ethics code, the most popular reform proposal in the survey.

Unlike the other two branches of the government, the judiciary is largely immune to public opinion. But the court is starting to feel some pressure, and when it convenes on Monday for the first time since June, it will be grappling not only with a slate of new cases, but also controversies around the justices’ finances and jurisprudence.

The nine justices, unlike lower-court judges, don’t have a formal ethics code — an omission that’s come under scrutiny amid a spate of news stories digging into trips taken and benefits received by Clarence Thomas, and, to a lesser degree, Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor.

Those investigations, combined with some high-profile decisions on issues like abortion that put the court at odds with public opinion, have dented the public’s view of the court’s legitimacy over the past few years. As documented by other polls, trust in the court as an institution is falling steeply.

But unlike most of the other independent polls, the new POLITICO | Morning Consult survey digs into specific reform proposals, most of which are quite popular, despite dim prospects of them being enacted by Congress or put into place by the justices themselves.

In addition to the 75 percent of voters — a bipartisan consensus of 81 percent of Democrats, 72 percent of Republicans and 69 percent of independents — who support a binding ethics code, roughly two-thirds of voters support term limits for the justices (68 percent). A similar percentage (67 percent) say the court should televise oral arguments, while 66 percent believe there should be an age limit for the justices. A smaller majority, 60 percent, think there should be an equal number of Democrats, Republicans and independents on the high court.

Two proposals did not earn broad support, however.

Only 44 percent think the number of justices should be expanded, though that includes 65 percent of Democrats. President Joe Biden and congressional Democrats resisted the calls of liberal activists and some fellow lawmakers to add new justices to counter the majority appointed by Republican presidents.

Despite the court’s lower profile, voters are aware of its rightward shift in recent years, the poll shows. A majority, 52 percent, correctly say the majority of justices have been appointed by Republican presidents (six of the nine justices currently serving have been). And 55 percent say the court is at least somewhat conservative, including 21 percent who call it “very conservative.”

The poll also explored where the public stands on some of the issues likely to come before the court over the next year, including gun rights for accused domestic abusers and the effort in some states to bar former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot over his conduct following the 2020 election.

Only 31 percent of voters say they support allowing people under restraining orders to possess firearms, while a 56 percent majority oppose allowing those people to have guns. The Supreme Court will hear a case on a federal law banning those people from having guns in November.

Meanwhile, the poll found softening opposition to the court’s controversial abortion ruling last year. Asked about the “Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and leave abortion policies in the U.S. up to the states,” more voters say they disapprove (46 percent) of the ruling than approve (42 percent).

But in a July 2022 Morning Consult poll conducted in the immediate aftermath of the Dobbs ruling, disapproval of the decision was 9 points higher: 55 percent, with just 35 percent approving.

The new survey asked voters for their opinions of the nine justices individually but found little overall differences, including broad swaths of the electorate who have never heard of them or have no opinion.

Thomas has most name recognition, least favorable ratings of the nine justices. [see graphic in article]

As it was in 2020, the Supreme Court is likely to be a major issue in the next presidential campaign. Voters are divided evenly between whether they trust President Joe Biden (44 percent) or former President Donald Trump (42 percent) to handle the Supreme Court more.

The POLITICO | Morning Consult poll (toplines, crosstabs) was conducted Sept. 23-25, surveying 1,967 registered voters online. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

all 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] flossdaily@lemmy.world 119 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Sure, faith in the Supreme Court is down, but that's only because the court is dominated by judges who were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote and didn't represent the values of the majority of Americans.

... Well, that and the fact that the conservative justices on the court openly lied about their positions on important issues.

... Or is it just that many of us are still pretty fucking outraged that they stepped in and gave the presidency to George W. Bush, who lost both the popular vote, and would have lost the electoral college vote, too under ANY AND ALL of the proposed ballot counting measures in Florida, had the court actually... You know... Not forbidden them from counting them.

... Of course it might also be a little bit about the fact that Republicans rigged the judicial appointment system to block a Democratic nominee a year from the end of Obama's term on the grounds that it was too close to an election, and rushed Trump's nominee mere weeks from an election, in the most nakedly hypocritical moment in Senate history.

...Then again, maybe it's just because the conservatives on this court have turned the court from an institution that protects the citizens and safeguards rights into an institution which strips rights away.

... Or perhaps it's just that they've thrown away any attempt to even pretend to be a serious judicial institution when they did away with the entire doctrine of standing when it suited their ideological purposes.

... Or maybe it's their use of the Shadow Docket to massively alter the laws of the land with quick, secret rulings with little deliberation or explanation, and which they don't even sign their name to.

Or, maybe it's just the tiny, tiny issue that they have been caught red-handed taking bribes in exchange for their votes.

Or, no... Could it be that AFTER being caught doing this, they have absolutely refused to step down, and refused to regulate themselves in any way, and ludicrously declared that even Congress can't regulate them?

Any of those things?

[–] fubo@lemmy.world 61 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

How about the appointment of an unreformed rapist and drug abuser who demonstrated his utter lack of capacity for judicial temperament during his confirmation hearings? Red-faced shrieking is a bad look for a judge.

To the true-believer Trumpies, of course, Kavanaugh's status as a rapist is a plus, as it demonstrates the attitude that he brings to cases involving women and sexual minorities.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

The craziest thing about Kavenaugh is that he's a better Justice than several of his conservative peers.

[–] teamevil@unilem.org 9 points 1 year ago

Pretty sure that guy was part of W's legal team that put him in office....just saying.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I nominate Flossdaily to the Supreme Court

[–] watson387@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 year ago
[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

1.) The Supreme Court should have a binding code of ethics.

2.) The maximum age for a sitting Supreme Court Justice should be 65. The maximum age for appointment should be 55.

3.) The Supreme Court should have a term limit of 12 years with a maximum of one term in a person's lifetime.

4.) The Supreme Court should be expanded. Not entirely sure to what number but in my head I envision a pool of justices from which are randomly chosen and assigned:

First: 9 are chosen for 1 term to review the cases that are being asked to be heard by the Supreme Court and determine if they should be on the docket two terms later.

Second: 9 are chosen to hear the cases that are on the docket for that term.

Third: 9 backup justices are chosen to take the place any of the currently active ones in the event they are unable to perform their duties. I find it hard to believe it would be necessary but absolute safety and caution tells me the backup pool should total 18. 9 to take the place of those reviewing cases and 9 to take the place of those actively hearing cases.

Fourth: No justice will serve in the same role for more than two consecutive terms and no more than five total terms in any one role over their 12 year appointment.

But that's just all the shit I made up in my head.

[–] willis936@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

the shit I made up

Ah, so you've applied a similar amount of rigor as the founding fathers.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

At least he's honest about it

[–] Lexam@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But John Roberts says they don't need change and that we can toootally trust them!

[–] spider@lemmy.nz 7 points 1 year ago

Of course we can:

The chief justice’s wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, has made millions in her career recruiting lawyers to prominent law firms, some of which have business before the court. Now, a letter sent to Congress claims that may present a conflict of interest.

[–] UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

Nothing will happen until the House changes

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

This fake court needs to be aborted.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

SCOTUS has been garbage for decades, their only purpose is to uphold the laws on white supremacy this country was built on

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If voters want changes, they should go to the polls, and stop electing idiots like Trump who nominate garbage.

[–] steinbring@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"If voters want change, they should go to the polls" doesn't work anymore. I don't know if it is the Democrats' spinelessness or the fact that the GOP is doing everything that they can to gerrymander and rig elections, or when that fails, just try to overthrow the damn government. We really need a plan B, though.

[–] flossdaily@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's really not the Democrats' fault.

Democrats have not had true, fillibuster-proof control of Congress since the late 1970s.

For about seven months in 2009-10 they had something pretty close to that if you count the independents who caucused with them, but they also had the traitor, Joe Lieberman who ruined Democrats' one chance to get a public option for healthcare.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I love how apologists for Democrats' spinelessness never mention that the party could have done away with the filibuster forever with just 50 votes, and always pretend that Lieberman didn't have Ben Nelson's help in killing the public option.

[–] vjxtdibobyd@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

They don't want to get rid of the filibuster because then they might actually have to pass substantive bills instead of giveaways to insurance companies and measly tax credits

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Democrat's spinelessness

What you seem mad about here are a small number of Democrats who refuse to get on board for big progressive bills.

What you're missing is that those Democrats aren't spineless, but rather they disagree. Their voters disagree with other Democrats and so pressure their representative to take stances other Democrats oppose.

This happens because the Democrat party is a coalition party. They don't move in lockstep as Republicans do, about anything.

You and I would likely vote for Democrats, given the alternative, and I assure you that we have very different politics. For instance, you see removing the fillibuster as a good way to pass reforms and I see it as a good way to get trans people killed the next time a Republicans commands both gavels.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What you’re missing is that those Democrats aren’t spineless, but rather they disagree.

If they're so scared of doing the right thing that they won't, that's spinelessness. If they don't want to do the right thing and will fight against it, I am under no obligation to support them.

Democrat party

uh...

For instance, you see removing the fillibuster as a good way to pass reforms

And you oppose reform.

I see it as a good way to get trans people killed the next time a Republicans commands both gavels.

They're not going to let the filibuster stop them from doing it if they actually want to do it. They're not going to find just enough turncoats to keep the filibuster just to defend trans people. This is what I mean about spinelessness. You're so scared about what Republicans might do in the future that you're willing to preserve the filibuster, keeping badly needed reforms from happening. If you wanted to have protections for trans people, you would support ending the filibuster so we could put some in place. Republicans are gonna do what they're gonna do in either case. You'd rather gain nothing first. The more reforms we pass, the more popular policy Republicans will have to muster the political capital to undo before they can make things worse than they are today.

You're using a vulnerable minority as a rhetorical shield to defend a procedural nonsense that has been used to hold back human rights from minorities since Jim Crow. A proud tradition for what both you and Joe McCarthy call the Democrat Party.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

In genuinely surprised that you put all this effort into a response and zero effort into processing what I said.

You skip over my actual points and just... ramble

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And here we come to the part where a centrist can't address what a progressive has said and condescendingly dismisses it instead.

Concession accepted.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You literally know nothing about me. I explained how reality functions and you threw some weird tantrum over a one-line example.

Grow up.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I already accepted your concession.

You don't have do be more condescending just because you can't address what I wrote.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks for the confirmation that you cannot clear the bar even when it is left on the ground.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

What can I say. I'm not as good at limbo as you are.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Only 37% to 62% of eligible voters actually turn out for elections.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Any reason to think that will improve?

[–] flossdaily@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Yeah, that would have been a great strategy had we started it 30 years ago.

As it is the only way to repair this court in our lifetime is an overwhelming democratic sweep of the Senate, (and winning the presidency) and then massively restructuring the court to add enough new seats to get control back into the hands of the majority of Americans, and our of the hands of those corrupt, bigoted theocrats.

[–] teamevil@unilem.org 13 points 1 year ago

43 years ago... fucking Regan is responsible for a fuckton of this bullshit.

[–] willis936@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The party of ratfuckers would never let something like "the constituents' interest in political representation" keep them from winning elections.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

We'll have to wait for them to die, too. With modern medical technology ACB could live to be 200. Then what?

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 3 points 1 year ago

You can lay at least some of the blame on Mitch McConnell's doorstep.

[–] ThePantser@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The sign, what did it say before the covered compass? Cumpass, Conpass?

[–] grasshopper_mouse@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Right!? I need to know.