Poll: Voters Think Supreme Court Is Too Conservative

A new Quinnipiac poll shows that more voters think the Supreme Court is too conservative than too liberal, by a 31% to 25% margin. More voters also think the Court is going in the wrong direction.

Matthew Yglesias notes that "the liberal lead follows earlier Quinnipiac results, but they show a declining number of people calling the Court about right."

Comments

[DallasMike]

Best news I heard all day

[lthuedk 1]

Really, there are only five American Supreme Court Justices. The rest, Scalia/Thomas, Alito, and Roberts are fascists hiding behind the moniker of federalism and the scam of the Unitary Executive. Two of these, Alito and Roberts were, in fact, appointed by a dictatorship. They should resign in shame.

Their presence on our highest court is an insult to our Founders and a serious threat to democracy.

http://www.light-to-dark.com/supremes_06.html

[landmine]

Well said!

[hoopesaz]

"appointed by a dictatorship". If Bush and Co. were truly a dictatorship, we wouldn't all be so excited about an Obama presidency. It would never happen. Second, they were NOMINATED by the president, confirmed and appointed by a vote in congress. Seems like you need to brush up on the definition of dictatorship.

[research]

BushCo has in place, right now, all the laws they need, all the mercenaries they need, to declare an emergency and stop the elections.

you can be jailed in secret with no trial forever. Habeas corpus is gone.

BushCo can spy on you and anyone else they want to anywhere in the world, everything.

BushCo is above the law.

That's the FISA law. I could go on, but don't you know what rights you have lost? how sad.

look up Naomi tens steps to fascism.

[darthdarcy]

The Federalist Society is key to all of the plots against our Republic and very system of government...

As Alexander Hamilton warned when the Judicial Branch joins with either other of our other two equal branches then we will lose our democracy...

The Justice Dept. and Federal Courts as well as the Supreme Court are infested with these Federalist Society Tory traitors...

[Ramirez]

The appointments of Alito and Roberts were approved by the US Senate.

[harriscrl3]

Duh

Thats what happens when you elect republican Presidents out of fear and they appoint conservative judges

Carol

[BBackSoon]

Perhaps I am being a little simple but I don"t think the court is too conservative. I think it is stacked by Bushco Right Wing Extremists. Conservatives have some values and for the most part still believe in doing what is right. Roberts and Alito along with Scalias and Thomas have a firm grip on the court. And they will vote how ever they are instructed. I don"t believe they have the Countries best interests in mind, they have corporate masters.

I don"t think it is too conservative, I think it is too corrupt.

[hoopesaz]

They vote however they are instructed? Is this just idiot supposition, or do you have some evidence for that? What about the court is corrupt? They don't think like you? have you ever read the arguments before the supreme court? Have you ever read a supreme court decision? Give some examples.

[Cathexis]

Um ... yes, I have read them. And it is amusing that the Rightwing meme is against "activist" judges, when Scalia and Thomas (especially) are the most activist judges on the bench!

Are you actually going to sit there, hoopesaz, and argue to the contrary? That is like demanding to prove the sun shines during the day. Are you truly ignorant of this fact or are you merely attempting to spin and dissemble to hide the fact that almost all of the recent decisions, especially the 5-4 wins, were corrupt/hyper-partisan? Just so you don't accuse me of dodging your attempt to fog the issue, I would point to the following as a very small sampling of "corrupt/GOP-partisan" cases:

* Morse v. Frederick (BongHits4Jesus)
* Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation
* DC Gun Ban case (overturning 230 years of legal precedent)

and, of course, there's Gore v Bush.

Here's another clue: Whenever Scalia says "this is a narrow ruling, not to be used as precedent," that means it is legally baseless and either corrupt and/or partisan.

[jcorrington]

No, Hoop, bback soon is right. All you need do is look at the output of those right wing idiots - their output has been out of the bush/rove/cheney playbook. Where have u been for gods sakes!

I also think thomas and scalia are profoundly disturbed people - have you ever listened to them??? NUTS, i tell ya!!!!!!!!!!

[BBackSoon]

I have no evidence except they way that the 4 right listing Judges seem to band together no matter what. They will push the most blatantly bastardized version of the law as the way the founding fathers meant them. Like the DC Gun Law Decision as of late. If these Justices are thinking for themselves then they are some seriously bent people. If not they are under some other bent control.

Anyway I don"t have to have evidence the question at hand is how would I answer that pole. My answer was not Conservative but Corrupt. And now that I think about it maybe I should change that to "Not Conservative but Overtly Political (Read Bushco Controlled)."

[JennyJay]

Keeping in mind that polls are done on land lines and not cell phones, I suspect that the real number of people thinking the court is too conservative - - - might be OFF THE CHART entirely.

[hoopesaz]

Because....only liberals have cell phones? Really good point Jenny.

[MaryfromMontcoPA]

No, silly, because cellphone only users are demographically younger, and younger voters tend to be more liberal.

[Ramirez]

"Poll: Voters Think Supreme Court Is Too Conservative"

Weird headline. According to the poll, more voters think the court is balanced than think it's too conservative.

Who writes this stuff?

[fiascolvr]

Hear hear.

[JLee]

I look forward to seeing the Supreme Court keep fighting the electorate in an America where Congress and (hopefully) the White House are controlled by the Democrats. The Court's journey to irrelevance will be entertaining indeed.

[hoopesaz]

It's called checks and balances. I don't know what you mean by "fighting the electorate", but if you are somehow wishing for 1/3rd of our checks and balance to be irrelevant then I guess I don't understand your point at all.

Are you still just hung up on the 2000 decision in the Gore/Bush election? What is your point?

[CAPTAINSKIPPY]

Since starting to awaken about December, 2000, voters have decided they don't want the Supreme Court picking our President, by overriding our votes. In 2008, they feel even more strongly about that, but meanwhile the nightmare continues.

[hoopesaz]

I don't believe the court picked the president. But, assuming you do believe that, then you would have to concede that regardless of which way the court would have ruled they would have effectively picked the president. A key to the issue was whether or not election officials could question the votes of people by inspecting dimples on a piece of paper, and "hanging chads"

To put the election in the hands of folks who were just guessing...well, how much justice would there have been in that decision? I can see people being miffed, particularly with the outcome of Bush's presidency. I think the court was in an impossible position.

[RTIII]

Nomatter what you say or believe, the Supreme Court of the USA should NEVER have taken the case. There were two constitutional processes that were circumvented. It was an unconstitutional election.
.

[Ramirez]

Bush got more votes than Gore. You know that, don't you?

[sinecure62]

No, Bush didn't. It has been well documented that a FULL recount of Florida's votes in the 2000 presidential election (which the SCOTUS arbitrarily ended) would have resulted in a Gore victory. Get YOUR facts straight Ramirez!

[Sylmason]

Conservative is a nice way of saying,,,,'bushed'.

[kinnycut]

Yes every Judge bases some of their rulings on some of their own personal bias, but when that bias appears more political than personal people then begin to recognize a problem. However, it is the justices Bush appointed that makes the court more conservative because those appointments were soley based on his political bias.

[BrianMac]

The Supreme Court consists of human beings. All human beings have biases. It depends on who picks those humans to interpret the Constitution and how much of that bias (that is evident from prior rulings) the appointing president can stomach and how the congressmen who give the thumbs up or thumbs down want to appear to their constituents.

[Ramirez]

It's senators who advise and consent, not congressmen.

[jwatso7]

People are JUST starting to see this?! And only 31 percent?! I wouldn't expect that to affect much at the polls in November, unfortunately. Quite frankly, I just don't think Americans pay attention to the court and recognize the depth of the impact they can have on our lives. The SCOTUS is probably the biggest voting issue in November, and given the wreckage our nation has become, that's saying a lot.

[hoopesaz]

On what issues specifically do you think the court has just completely missed the mark on interpreting the consitution?

[wordvarc]

.

Really, it's about Scalia and Thomas. They use an elitist reason with narrow logic to bolster a conservative agenda. Wisdom escapes both. They and their records are hard to like...unless you are one who thinks their favor was purchased on a hunting trip.

Their caving to ridiculous rovian RNC/GOP arguments and conservative celebrity status in the Gore-w 2000 race was pathetic.

Scalia's comments are often reprehensible. His comment on voting against the DC handgun ban demonstrated how out of touch he can be; "Someone might need a hand gun to hold on a robber as they call the police. Thomas seems to have trouble putting words together in a logical fashion make it seem he just votes the way Scalia does.
.

[Stretchumall]

The Justices of the SCOTUS wouldn't know the U.S. Constitution if it were written in brail and shoved where the sun don't shine.


Stretchumall

[hoopesaz]

And we're supposed to believe that you do? It's remarkable how many average joe's are willing to stand up and call the justices stupid, ignorant, and uninformed. Average Joe's who know nothing about the constitiution other than what they hear from NPR and read on HuffPo.

Really, there is a lot I don't like about some of the logic of the justices on the left, but I'll be the last one to claim that they don't understand the consitution. I'm sure they do, mutch better than I. I just disagree with their conclusions often times.

[SuperChargerHeaven]

Seems to me that their biggest constitutional blunder with the conservatives was the habeus corpus issue with the Gitmo detainees. The decisionthat ultimately won out was correct but the mere fact that it was decided by one vote would throw their dedication to the constitution in doubt. First year law students know you cannot hold a person indefinitely. We fought a war over this, we declared independence from Britain for this (among other things). Conservative is supposed to mean an almost literal reading of the constitution. Not allowing these people a trial because of inferred or presumed status seems a very loose interpretation of what is constitutional.

[truthynesslover]

This election is even more important because of the likelyhood of as many as 3 judges retiring in the next few years.Workers rights,womans rights,the environment are all issues the court will have the power to change.Voting for Obama will keep the court from the grubby hands of the corporations and christianists.