I think most people believe that 4 justices are unbiased. Some may see 5 as unbiased. As to which 4....
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael McDonald <mmcdon@gmu.edu>
Sender: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 19:42:33
To: 'Election Law'<election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Justice Breyer's new book & election law
I agree Brad. Much of the changes in opinion Paul is noting is probably due
to the different likely voter frames in 2008 and 2010. The occasional 2008
"likely" voters I suspect are less likely to hold an opinion about the
Supreme Court, as they tend to have lower levels of political knowledge,
follow political news, etc.
============
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Associate Professor, George Mason University
Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
Mailing address:
(o) 703-993-4191 George Mason University
(f) 703-993-1399 Dept. of Public and International Affairs
mmcdon@gmu.edu 4400 University Drive - 3F4
http://elections.gmu.edu Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
-----Original Message-----
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
[mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Smith, Brad
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 7:03 PM
To: Paul Lehto
Cc: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] Justice Breyer's new book & election law
Whoa, careful there Paul, that's a Rasmussen poll you're citing!
Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
Designated Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 East Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43215-3200
614.236.6317
bsmith@law.capital.edu
http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp
CLS_Preferred Full Color Logo.jpg
-----Original Message-----
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
[mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Lehto
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 6:38 PM
To: George Waters
Cc: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] Justice Breyer's new book & election law
Currently 58% of the public believes Supreme court justices have their
own political agenda and only 23% believes they are impartial, with
19% unsure.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/toplines/pt_surv
ey_toplines/april_2010/toplines_supreme_court_april_8_9_2010
Given that impartiality is a core defining characteristic of courts in
general, this is a fairly devastating indictment of the Supreme Court.
The figure for having their own political agenda is up 6 points since
2008, and the figure for impartiality has dropped 2 points since 2008.
Cf.
http://207.97.201.145/public_content/politics/toplines/pt_survey_topline
s/november_2008/toplines_supreme_court_november_14_15_2008
This difference is presumably in reaction to Citizens United, which
large super-majorities of both liberals and conservatives opposed
right after the decision itself.
If one considers that perhaps the most discredited Supreme Court
decision in US history - Dred Scott - was not opposed significantly by
majorities after the decision itself, and that institutional support
for the Supreme Court was not substantially affected either, it
doesn't seem fair to measure support for a decision such as Bush v.
Gore based on institutional approval ratings. Withdrawing support for
the institution such as the Supreme Court is the very last and most
extreme form of opposition, and would normally be based on both a
series of very bad decisions that also, significantly, impact the very
institution's ability to do justice under any reasonable set of facts.
Also, in the public's mind, Bush v. Gore just decided the 2000
election, and they do not generally perceive its equal protection
holding as having continuing applicability -- they tend to believe it
is "not a precedent." Under this common view, there's no effective
peaceful way to alter the court's deciding of the 2000 election, and
don't realize that it's equal protection holding informs HAVA and
continues to come into play, so the public's mellowing (if any) on
Bush v. Gore should not be read as translating into political
viability of its core equal protection holding.
Finally, any decision that decides an election is most heavily subject
to the dynamic of "rooting for the home team" in which many people
pick and choose their support or opposition to a decision based on
support or opposition for the election result it entrenched. Thus,
while this dynamic exists with all Supreme Court decisions, it is
nevertheless worth pointing out that a hypothetical court that was
openly and stridently partisan and not at all impartial would be
supported by a very substantial number of the political partisans of
the party or interests whose side is being favored. Such approval
would hardly diminish the corruption of such a court, or the
corruption of the openly partisan decisions of such a court, but the
percentages of support in polls might still be (misleadingly) argued
as support for the legitimacy of the hypothetically corrupt Supreme
Court.
On 9/23/10, George Waters <George.Waters@doj.ca.gov> wrote:
And let me pose a follow-up question: If the US Supreme Court had not
ended
the recount, and if the recount had resulted in a victory for Gore,
would
the public had demonstrated the same willingness to abide by that
decision?
Approval ratings for the Supreme Court as an institution have traded
places with the Presidential approval rating and Congressional
approval rating. See
http://www.gallup.com/poll/24802/supreme-court-approval-rating-best-four
-years.aspx
Being perceived as being away from the center of political dispute
helps insulate the Supreme Court.
The main thing that could bring Supreme Court approval ratings lower
would be an unpopular LIBERAL decision that would eat away at the base
of supreme court support among more conservative voters. This
happened in 2005 in the apparent wake of striking down the law against
sodomy in Georgia, suggests Gallup. See link above.
Again, with only 23% considering Supreme Court justices to be
impartial, there's a huge problem for the court as a whole, and
institutional support ratings don't fairly capture that, nor do they
fairly capture attitudes toward particular decisions, particularly if
the decisions are widely perceived as conservative wins in a populist
sense.
Paul Lehto, J.D.