Meant to stand apart

Supreme Court doing miserably in the polls -- but does it matter?

  • Follow Editorials

We see that the U.S. Supreme Court is polling as poorly as it ever has among American voters.

Rasmussen Reports polling firm says only 28 percent of Americans think the high court is doing a good or excellent job, while 30 percent rate its performance as poor.

It’s the highest-ever “poor” rating, and the first time the court’s disapproval rating has eclipsed the rate of approval.

We’re all free to have our opinions on the court’s performance – and with the recent gay marriage, Voting Rights Act and affirmative action rulings, there’s something there for everyone to disagree with.

Fact is, this page bitterly disagreed with the previous high court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London, a narrow 5-4 decision in 2005 that said governments can condemn your property and seize it if they have another private entity that can do more with it, in their eyes.

It was a horrible, despicable, rotten, scum-dwelling decision that eroded property rights for all Americans. And, in a bit of poetic justice, the land that was seized by the city of New London was never redeveloped; the plans fell through.

On the other hand, the high court more recently stood up for property rights in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management, another 5-4 decision that rebuked Florida officials for unreasonable demands put on a property owner.

The high court giveth and the high court taketh away.

But as far as public polls go, the court doesn’t care about its popularity much, we don’t care, and neither should you.

That’s because it’s critical, under our system of self-governance, that the courts be answerable primarily to the rule of law, not to political whim or election-driven politics.

That, by definition, means angering a good portion of the electorate from time to time. Thank goodness the Supreme Court doesn’t rule based on the winds of public opinion.

Or at least it shouldn’t. We have noticed that some justices go where the law leads them, while others seem to be led by a political ideology which they never stray from.

Be that as it may, we understand that in today’s society, we measure almost everything and almost everyone’s opinion about almost everything. But the popularity of the U.S. Supreme Court isn’t one measurement that means very much.

The judicial branch was meant to stand apart.

The best thing we can do is to elect presidents and Senates that pick the best possible judges and justices.

You can look at the rulings and decide for yourself whether you think that’s happening. If it’s not, it’s not the court’s fault.

For that, you can look at the low approval ratings for Congress and the president.

Comments (11) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
deestafford
23431
Points
deestafford 07/08/13 - 09:33 am
5
1
The Supreme Court has gotten away from the original

intent of the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution. It was envisioned by them to be the weakest of the three branches of the government. One only has to read the writings of Jefferson and Madison to see this intent. Justice Marshall was the one who began the change in the power of the SCOTUS. Of course, President Jackson saying, "Justice Marshall has made his ruling, now let me see him enforce it."

The Court has become much more powerful than ever thought. What we have now is a tyranny by five people who are making their decisions more and more on politics than on the law. The most recent example o is what Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion in the DOMA decision that DOMA was unconstitutional. Not once in his opinion did he show that DOMA violated the Constitution. Rather his opinion was that it was a bad law because the people who drafted and passed DOMA had hatred and animus for homosexuals. This despite it was past by a majority of democrats in Congress and signed by a democrat president.
More and more decisions lack the clarity of what part of the Constitution is being violated or upheld.

We now have at least four justices who are solid believers of a "living Constitution" which should change with the times, four who believe in "original intent" and one whom goes which ever way he got out of bed in the morning. And we have a president who believes the Constitution is too restrictive on the government. This shows the constitutional "lecturer" does not even realize that was the primary purpose of the Constitution.

There is a way to fix this. The Constitution stipulates the imperial judiciary can be reined in:

Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2 gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction. The Second sentence of that paragraph reads, "In all other cases before mentioned [in Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2, second sentence.], the supreme Court shall have appellant Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such exceptions and under such Regulations as Congress shall make."

The last part "...with such exceptions and under such Regulations as Congress shall make." shows that Congress has power to restrict what cases it can rule on. Now, trying to imagine a Congress having the guts to do something like that which is granted by the Constitution be asking too much of our brains.

dichotomy
30378
Points
dichotomy 07/08/13 - 10:24 am
4
2
Yes, the SCOTUS has tumbled

Yes, the SCOTUS has tumbled from it's pedestal as far as I am concerned. And it did not have anything to do with their decisions on "gay marriage, Voting Rights Act and affirmative action rulings".

I lost ALL respect for SCOTUS when Chief Justice Roberts essentially re-wrote the Obamacare law in order to make it constitutional. It is NOT their job to re-write legislation. And I firmly, and fundamentally believe that it IS unconstitutional for the government to TAX someone for not buying something. Roberts CHANGED his vote based not on constitutionality, but on his concern for the legacy of HIS court.

And now, yes, you can throw in the issues of government seizure of private property as my second reason for believing the SCOTUS has lost all sight of the Constitution and our right to unreasonable seizure.

The Supreme Court has become a political body and no longer is a separate, independent defender of Constitutional, individual, rights. They have become the defender of big government and it's total control of the people, the people's privacy, and the people's property.

rmwhitley
5526
Points
rmwhitley 07/08/13 - 10:46 am
0
0
democrats like
Unpublished

Justice's roberts, ginsburg, kagan, sotomayor and breyer have denegrated the name of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Riverman1
79144
Points
Riverman1 07/08/13 - 11:38 am
5
2
Marbuy v. Madison. Imagine

Marbuy v. Madison. Imagine what the court will be like and the resulting damage to the Constitution if we lose a conservative judge and Obama or another Democrats appoints a liberal. We are living on the edge with a fall into the European style socialist abyss very possible.

myfather15
49311
Points
myfather15 07/08/13 - 02:33 pm
5
2
Non-sense people!! According

Non-sense people!! According to popular liberal beliefs, nothing has changed and the Country is in better shape than ever!! The Obamasiah and the Supreme Court are doing a fine job, and are only strengthing We the People!! Republicans will just find any reason to complain about the Oh-so wonderful federal government!!

corgimom
27422
Points
corgimom 07/08/13 - 03:38 pm
2
3
In every Supreme Court

In every Supreme Court decision, you are going to have people that agree with it and people that disagree.

The only difference is that too many people think that the US should be run according to how they, personally, see fit.

When you have a country that is ran to the exclusive agreement of one person, or a small group of people, then you are talking about dictatorship.

If you agree with some of their decisions, and disagree with some of them, then you know they are doing the right thing.

Darby
23553
Points
Darby 07/08/13 - 05:41 pm
4
2
"When you have a country that is ran (sic) to

the exclusive agreement of one person, or a small group of people, then you are talking about dictatorship."

.
In other words, pretty much what we have right now.

OJP
5896
Points
OJP 07/08/13 - 05:48 pm
3
1
This editorial represents a naive view of the SCOTUS.

The Court is without a doubt concerned with public perception. Its opinions are ink on paper, nothing more. If the public does not accept them, they are ineffectual. Of course, this doesn't mean It is AS political as the other two branches, but It is by no means a-political.

Also, not a single Justice "go[es] where the law leads" without exception. If the law didn't require judgment calls, we could just write a program to spit out rulings. These judgment calls are colored by each Justice's political views - they are mere mortals like the rest of us.

And even it that were possible, it is not consistent with our legal pedigree. Our judiciary grew out of English Common Law which is characteristically judge-made, particularly in relation to France's judiciary. In other words, if the Founders intended this country's judiciary to be similar to the system they knew, they intended for judges to make law.

Overall, the actual nature of our judiciary is not reflected by what the ACES seems to think it is.

OJP
5896
Points
OJP 07/08/13 - 05:53 pm
2
2
@dichotomy

The SCOTUS didn't rewrite the ACA. Because the Justices recognize that they are not elected, they have a principle that requires that they look for any constitutional interpretation of the legislation before them (because that legislation WAS drafted and signed by those who WERE elected).

It's a good rule for an unelected group of 9 with that much power.

myfather15
49311
Points
myfather15 07/08/13 - 08:35 pm
3
1
Ok, corgimom

How about we place these decisions on the ballot box? Oh wait, we've already done that in most States and the majority voted it down. Then the Courst overuled the people!

Darby
23553
Points
Darby 07/09/13 - 12:32 am
1
0
"Its opinions are ink on paper, nothing

more. If the public does not accept them, they are ineffectual."

.
Except that it's decisions are backed up by force of arms. Unfortunately!

Ineffectual?? Hardly!!

shrimp for breakfast
5422
Points
shrimp for breakfast 07/09/13 - 12:51 am
1
0
"We have noticed that some

"We have noticed that some justices go where the law leads them, while others seem to be led by a political ideology which they never stray from."
That is the definitive statement. When the justices start going by their emotions rather than the law heaven help us because we will get decisions based on what the particular justice wants rather than where the law takes them.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Mother tries to conceal newborn's birth

Cierra Y'Kesia Simms, 22, initially told Richmond County Sheriff's deputies about 7 a.m. Wednesday that she had discovered the baby on the ground behind the Masonic Temple on Wrightsboro Road, ...
Search Augusta jobs