Re: [EL] Public attitudes to SCOTUS

Corporations have long had "a right of free speech" under the
commercial speech doctrine developed by the US Supreme Court, so I'd
be counted among the 80% that think corporations should have some
right of free speech.  That question is irrelevant to Citizens United.
 The specific polls on that case, taken shortly after the case, show
very large majorities of both liberals and conservatives opposed to
the holding of Citizens United. See
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021701151.html

Many people will "vote for the home team" on Court rulings, especially
when invited to by a questioner.  But the fact remains that only a
very small minority thinks the Supreme Court justices rule objectively
as opposed to in their personal or political interest.  Perhaps, for
some of the large majority who think decisions are politically
motivated they will nevertheless approve of the Justices because of
"rooting for the home team" bias.

But even if so, the fact remains that precious few of the ones who
know the most about the Supreme Court (such as lawyers and scholars)
can openly condone the underlying (alleged) facts in the widespread
perception in the public that the Supreme Court justices rule in
partisan ways.  Thus, in terms of what everyone learns about what our
justice system is supposed to represent (objective impartial justice),
the Supreme Court has an enormous problem.

Polls of narrow ranges of people such as establishment actors and
perhaps scholars will probably show higher levels of asserted belief
in the objectivity of the court, but I emphasize that I have
consciously (above) applied the PUBLIC attitudes about the Court's
partisanship and lack of objectivity to the standards (anchored in due
process concerns) most well known to people such as those on this
list.   People can and do keep Supreme Court "scorecards" and will
call them as they see them, but the overall belief that the court is
partisan is a very serious problem, if we apply (as we must) the ideas
contained in standards of due process like perceived bias.

Overall, this is nothing more than applying the facts (widespread
public perception of bias) to the legal standard, and it frustrates
attempts to rehabilitate the Court's reputation.

Paul Lehto, J.D.
On 10/18/10, Smith, Brad <BSmith@law.capital.edu> wrote: