4w ago

Americans don't see Supreme Court as politically neutral, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds

www.reuters.com

reuters.com

Americans are divided on major issues that the U.S. Supreme Court is due to rule on in the coming weeks, but most agree on one thing - neither Republicans nor Democrats see the nation's top judicial body as politically neutral, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Just 20% of respondents to the poll agreed that the Supreme Court is politically neutral while 58% disagreed and the rest either said they did not know or did not respond. Among people who described themselves as Democrats, only 10% agreed it was politically neutral and 74% disagreed, while among Republicans 29% agreed and 54% disagreed.

54 comments

The supreme court was stacked specifically to help topple democracy, so how could anyone see that as politically neutral?
- Not just stacked, BOUGHT. Most of the Conservatives are taking bribes openly.
  
  Bribes are protected speech. Now move along, citizen.

Fun fact: a full majority of Supreme Court justices were nominated by presidents who were inaugurated despite losing the popular vote!

Huh, no one is reporting on trump's polling either.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump
- I can’t believe that ~45% are still favorable. Most depressing thing I’ve read in the past 10 minutes
  
  Negative unfavorable is pretty bad though. He's always had his main base of 36%. Him sending in the National Guard and Marines to California may have moved that number a little down too. These are mostly months old polls.

No shit
The Tangerine Toddler added people he thought he could control to an already corrupt panel
Thomas, at a minimum, should be in prison

I'll take 'stating the obvious' for 2000 alex

Because it’s fucking not…?

The supreme court system as we know it needs to be replaced outright. I think that term and age limits (10 years, age 60), plus each state popularly electing 1 supreme justice to represent them, would be the right way to go. The president can elect a justice to represent their administration, who is replaced by the next president's pick. Also, a ban on gifts of any shape. No more motorcoaches!
This would make it much harder for justices to become politically captured, or culturally out of touch.
- I think what we should do is have a max age for appointment, and then phase one out every 2 years.
  This gives an 18 year turnaround, and every president gets 2 nominations. The senate must follow confirmation hearings and cannot pull that shit removed McConnell did on Obama.
  The most senior justice in the one that goes. Unless One dies early for some reason.
  Also mandate ethics and oversight.
  
  Of course you need Senate confirmations, before Trump elects some billionaire, Fox host or family member to the Supreme Court
- One per state is not great. Like the senate, it will over-represent low population states and unless you include Puerto Rico it will be an even number.
  We almost need a non-partisan judiciary oversight board that appoints supreme court justices and has the authority to remove them given concrete and well-defined rules to prevent them from acting against the public and judicial precedent.
  
  There is a simple way to eliminate ties: the President's Justice can have a vote that breaks tied results. Otherwise, their vote is merely a +1. It is only when there is an exact split of votes that it becomes +2.
  Anyhow, I don't think the amount of justices is about representing state population size. It is more about ensuring that there is a variety of minds to consider an issue, and to prevent Federal power from stacking the courts with their preferred type of mindset. The most important thing is to eliminate corruption, as that is the ultimate killer of morality and thoughtful deliberation.
- Expanded the bench to 60 justices, and have a random panel of 15 hear any given case.

I love how anyone needed a poll for this.
A new poll indicates breathing may be very popular.
- “Well I wanna hear what FOX News says first before I make up my mind about breathing…”
  —MAGA
- If you polled people on breathing you’d find 67 to 70% of people in favor of it and 30 to 33% claiming it isn’t American enough because too many foreigners are doing it.
  
  You can fool some of the people all of the time, yes.
- They used to actually believe it was politically neutral, can you believe it? 😂
  
  6th grade me thought the Supreme Court was the coolest branch of government. Objective, wise, and infallible.
  We’re all just people I guess

I feel like a Venn diagram of the people unsure if the Supreme Court is neutral or not, would be a perfectly overlapping circle of people that were unsure to vote Trump or Harris (Biden).
And 20% is an alarming number of people completely out of touch with the rest of the world, or even their own local communities.
- completely out of touch with the rest of the world, or even their own local communities.
  With the ketamine crisis, there's a lot of people completely out of touch with the room they're in.

If they were politically neutral my student loans would be gone, RvW would still be here, and money wouldn't be considers free speech.

Your judges, and not just the Supreme Court ones, are appointed by politicians. How can they not be partisan?
- Canadian judges are all appointed by politicians and we don't have half the partisan issues America does.
  
  Still seems like a bad idea to me. I honestly don't even know how they're appointed here in Australia, because this shit never, ever comes up.
- a lot of judges are elected, actually
- That's not true. Judges are elected in many states.
  
  That's not any better.

It's just shocking, shocking I tell you, that this court, of whom the majority of justices were appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote, but rather by ideological zealots, would be a disappointment to the majority of the population who had no say on their appointment.
Shocking.

I might be missing some piece of information, being outside the US and all that, but isn't the Supreme Court stuffed with politically-biased people that are old, over conservative, showered in money on the regular, for life, with zero accountability for anything they do or don't do?
Because I have no idea how anyone would see this as "politically neutral".

I mean, when I first learned of "liberal" and "Conservative" justices I knew the system was broken.

Uh doy

Every time they publish an opinion proves theyre not

54 comments