The approval rating of the nation’s highest court stands at 40 per cent, according to a new poll

The Supreme Court’s approval rating has plunged to one of its lowest levels yet ahead of a ruling on Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for president.

The approval rating of the nation’s highest court stands at 40 per cent, according to the latest poll released by Marquette Law School on Wednesday.

The latest numbers rival only those of July 2022, when only 38 per cent of US adults said they approved of the Supreme Court and 61 per cent disapproved – just after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade.

  • ME5SENGER_24@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    128
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Approval ratings mean nothing to lifetime appointments. Nobody should hold a position forever. If they wanna keep them there for life, then at least make them subject to review every X years

    • thefartographer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      My wife and I love each other endlessly and agreed to the whole “until death” thing, but we both hold a firm belief that marriage contracts should have an expiration date at which point the couple can step back and evaluate if they want to continue this union. If not, marriage dissolved, bye.

      I hear people say that X isn’t marriage, but I say that nothing should be marriage and EVERYTHING should have a planned expiration date. Except light bulbs, batteries, and puppies.

      • d00phy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Kittens, too. Really all baby animals. And most baby humans (also animals, I know. Settle down, Internet).

        • thefartographer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          I don’t see the rabble of the internet coming out in their usual droves to insult you for the babies/animals quip, so I’ll do it for you!

          What the fuck, you donkey!? Don’t you understand how is babby formed??? It happens when girl get pragnent!!!

          • d00phy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Appreciate it. I was worried the Internet would let me down, there! Glad someone’s carrying the banner!

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      It surely does mean something. They don’t have an army to enforce their rulings. They also can get a whole bunch of new judges in. Finally, if a prosecutor gets their shit together they could end up in prison for bribery. And while they can define bribery however they want, see point one.

  • Thrashy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    We are rapidly approaching the point where it is an open question as to whether the Supreme Court can make its rulings stick in jurisdictions that don’t fall along the current majority’s ideological bent, and that’s not a place anybody in their right mind wants to go. The question is, are Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett still possessed of enough self-awareness to recognize that and rule accordingly at least some of the time? If not, do Roberts and Gorsuch make a consistent enough voting bloc to swing dicey decisions away from the foaming-at-the-mouth radical right wing of the bench when they might seriously endanger the ongoing credibility of the court as an institution? I’m not super optimistic, but time will tell…

    • Lemmeenym@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      11 months ago

      We are rapidly approaching the point where it is an open question as to whether the Supreme Court can make its rulings stick in jurisdictions that don’t fall along the current majority’s ideological bent

      Recently the most significant refusals to follow court rulings are in jurisdictions that do agree with the court majority’s ideological bent. Alabama’s voting maps fight and Texas’s current border fight being the two biggest ones. At least for now democrats still generally believe in the American system and respect the rule of law.

    • Optional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      There’s a reason for it. We may have made the need for it meaningless, but the reasoning is sound.

      • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        11 months ago

        It wasn’t, really. We need to stop attributing some kind of infinite foresight and wisdom to the authors of the constitution. The Supreme Court was a bad idea poorly implemented, the senate as the superior house was a fucking terrible idea, and the independent executive is not defensible at this point.

        The authors (who, let’s remember, were working with a 17th century philosophy on the nature of humankind that has since been discredited) were operating on entirely different premises, for an entirely different country, and balancing things like slavery and freedom and democracy versus rule by the elite (the elite were justified to rule by their identity as being elites) by trying to come to a middle ground compromise on those and related issues. It’s really kind of crap by modern democratic, political, and philosophical standards. The only reason it hasn’t been addressed is that we’ve become self-aware enough that we’re terrified that US democracy has fallen to the point that we could only do worse than 18th century slaveholders, landlords, and wealthy lawyers.

        To make it explicit, the authors thought that a) the rich would put the country’s interests ahead of their own, b) that selfishness would mean people wanted to protect their branch of government rather than their party, and c) that part b would be a sufficient bulwark against demagoguery. They believed in a world where men (and I mean men, specifically, and rich men in particular) were rational actors who would act in their own self-interest.

        Don’t get me wrong - they were reading the scholars of their time - but if political and social science hasn’t made advances in the past three centuries we should probably just give it up.

  • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    11 months ago

    Well, yeah half the court was appointed through nebulous means, and they’ve been slowly throwing out things considered settled law that’s been on the books for literal decades. No shit that people have no faith in the legitimacy of the court anymore.

    At this point I think we should ignore any and all rulings they make until we fix the system that brought this bullshit on.

    • Crikeste@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      And yet American criticize everyone but themselves. It’s almost as if the American populace has had their heads filled with nonsense propaganda and they couldn’t even tell you a single real truth about the world outside of America.

  • TengoHipo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    They are all in someone’s pocket. How can we approve of them. They make horrible decisions as of late.

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Shit, they are so screwed when they have to go up for election again…

    Wait, what?