As Obama-Care Decision Looms, NYTimes Fronts Odd Poll Saying Conservative Decisions Have Hurt SCOTUS's Status
Is the New York Times trying to soften up the Supreme Court before its Obama-care ruling, which may come later in June and could see the law declared unconstitutional? An unusual poll conducted by the Times and poll partner CBS News and plastered on Friday's front page is food for thought.
Friday's off-lead by Adam Liptak and Allison Kopicki insisted, "Approval Rating For Justices Hits Just 44% In Poll -- Decline Spans 25 Years -- Role of Personal Views Is Seen in Survey on Supreme Court." Yet the paper buried the continuing strong opposition to Obama-care. So why did the Times lead off with the relatively obscure angle on Supreme Court justices?
Just 44 percent of Americans approve of the job the Supreme Court is doing and three-quarters say the justices’ decisions are sometimes influenced by their personal or political views, according to a poll conducted by The New York Times and CBS News.
Those findings are a fresh indication that the court’s standing with the public has slipped significantly in the past quarter-century, according to surveys conducted by several polling organizations. Approval was as high as 66 percent in the late 1980s, and by 2000 approached 50 percent.
Apparently none of those surveys were conducted by the Times, which according to this new poll has never asked the question before. (And a decline in approval from "approaching 50 percent" in 2000 to 44 percent in 2012 doesn't sound like a vast decline.) So why ask the question now? Buried deeper into the story was the fact that the Court's disapproval rating was only 36 percent.
Without evidence, Liptak blamed two conservative court decisions loathed by the Times for the decline:
The decline in the court’s standing may stem in part from Americans’ growing distrust in recent years of major institutions in general and the government in particular. But it also could reflect a sense that the court is more political, after the ideologically divided 5-to-4 decisions in Bush v. Gore, which determined the 2000 presidential election, and Citizens United, the 2010 decision allowing unlimited campaign spending by corporations and unions.
“The results of this and other recent polls call into question two pieces of conventional wisdom,” said Lee Epstein, who teaches law and political science at the University of Southern California. One is that the court’s approval rating has been stable over the years, the other is that it has been consistently higher than that of the other branches of government, Professor Epstein said.
On the highest-profile issue now facing the court, the poll found that more than two-thirds of Americans hope that the court overturns some or all of the 2010 health care law when it rules, probably this month. There was scant difference in the court’s approval rating between supporters and opponents of the law.
(In February 2012, Liptak wrote a widely ridiculed front-page criticism of the Constitution as outdated for failing to entitle people to "free" education and health care.)
The court’s tepid approval ratings crossed ideological lines and policy agendas. Liberals and conservatives both registered about 40 percent approval rates. Forty-three percent of people who hoped the court would strike down the health care law approved of its work, but so did 41 percent of those who favored keeping the law.
The Times finally got to the nitty-gritty of public disapproval of Obama-care in paragraph 16 of 25.
Asked about the health care case, 41 percent of those surveyed said the court should strike down the entire law, and another 27 percent said the justices should overturn only the individual mandate, which requires most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty.
Only 24 percent said they hoped the court “would keep the entire health care law in place.”
These numbers have not changed much in recent months and appeared to be largely unaffected by the more than six hours of arguments in the Supreme Court in March.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
That finger-pointing episode from 2009 bites back
Submitted by ChrisNH on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 3:40pm.
We all recall the State of The Union speech in 2009, where an emboldened, hadn't-yet-failed Obama wagged his angry, scolding finger at the Justices sitting right in his line of fire. He was the 'Messiah' then, full of press clippings that his followers and swallowers in the media dutifully penned on his behalf.
It's payback time.
Finger pointing? Nope. So I assume you...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 10:05pm.
a. are employing metaphorical rhetoric, or
b. possess a very vivid imagination, or
c. have a poor memory, or
d. are deliberately distorting the facts, or
e. need a new TV
Obama did, inappropriately in my opinion, publicly disagree with the SC Citizens United decision during the SOTU address [and, by the way, the year was 2010, not 2009].
These were his exact words:
"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."
But there was no wagging an angry scolding finger at the Justices. So please recall that when you're doing whatever you have planned for payback time.
Jer
Good thing you set the record straight, Jer; otherwise ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 12:45am.
people who have observed Obama's activities from his inauguration day to the present might be inclined to see him as a lying, incompetent piece of shit.
MD
Damn Matt
Submitted by cocodrie on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 12:52am.
That's how I had Obabble sized up but now I view him as a manchurian candidate dedicated to the destruction of America.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
That, too, cocodrie; ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:04am.
though it is obvious that the purple-lipped RBFSOBPOS has legions of minions who admire him and who will continue to do his bidding; and more than a few ideological oddballs who will continue to relentlessly defend him.
Ok by me - the bastard needs all the help he can get; and it lets me know who the weirdos are.
MD
The pied Piper of Kenya
Submitted by cocodrie on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:09am.
The Pied Piper of Kenya
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
My pleasure, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:33am.
It would help if you folks would get the record straight from the start, however. This fact checking business can really put excessive demands on my time. ;-)
Jer
Just keep trying, Jer, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:11am.
on this conservative site, to make Obama look good.
Eventually you may come to realize why attempting to do so can "really put excessive demands" on your time.
MD
Isn't SCOTUS supposed to be
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 4:02pm.
Isn't SCOTUS supposed to be beyond the reach of politics and the people? And it is good they are and bad they are. SCOTUS is the reason we need to elect good Presidents.
Since when is SCOTUS a popularity contest?
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 4:04pm.
Its decisions are the bedrock of how the constitution is interpreted. It tackles very unpopular issues at very difficult times.
The justices of the court are not supposed to be out looking for the next talking head venue to air their blabberings, nor is polling data supposed to be the basis upon which they make their decisions. Even then, exceptions do occur. The Justices are supposed to adhere to a code of conduct which is much stricter than others, namely that even the appearance of impropriety disqualifies them to hear a case or perhaps even from the court membership itself.
The skanks at the New York Times have zero room to talk. Their standards went down the toilet long ago and they are now nothing but a fourth-rate propaganda organ of the DNC. A supermarket tabloid has more accurate stories about Area 51 than the most serious "reporting" of the NYT.
I don't take any general polling on SCOTUS seriously
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 4:16pm.
For several reasons:
1. Most Americans can't tell you what decisions that SCOTUS has made in recent years. Among those that can, they can't explain the Courts findings or the impact without resorting to the PowerPoint bullets they gleaned from the MSM or other sources.
2. Probably half of Americans (or more) can't tell you how many justices sit on the SCOTUS, let alone who the Chief Justice is.
3. The only SCOTUS decisions that the public gets even casually familiar with are the ones that the MSM spotlights, and they tend to be the decisions that shoot down liberal legislation like Obamacare (we hope). Ask the average American for an opinion on the Court's 5-4 decision (Kennedy siding with the 4 liberals) in Kelo v. New London, and they'll give you a blank stare. Why? Because Kelo increased the power of Big Government over the individual, and the MSM has no quarrel with that.
But standby for the end of this month when the SCOTUS is expected to release its decision on Obamacare. If it is ruled un-Constitutiional, we're going to hear the MSM echo the groans and wails of Dems everywhere, and this Court will be deemed the most evil since the one that handed down the infamous Dred Scott decision.
Of course. That explains why
Submitted by Immortal Fish on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 9:13pm.
Of course. That explains why Sandra Day O'Connor quit.
Funny.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 11:50pm.
I thought justices were appointed for life so they would be immune from things like public opinion and public opinion polls and could concentrate on doing the right thing regardless of which way public opinion blows today.
Whatever. I just ain't bright enough for the NYT.