The approval rating of the nation’s highest court stands at 40 per cent, according to a new poll

The Supreme Court’s approval rating has plunged to one of its lowest levels yet ahead of a ruling on Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for president.

The approval rating of the nation’s highest court stands at 40 per cent, according to the latest poll released by Marquette Law School on Wednesday.

The latest numbers rival only those of July 2022, when only 38 per cent of US adults said they approved of the Supreme Court and 61 per cent disapproved – just after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade.

  • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    10 months ago

    When five out of nine have been appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote, that’s what you’ll get.

    Of course, we have no way of removing any of them, so it’s not like they have to care.

      • Flumpkin@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Just appoint 10 additional supreme court judges. Then pass federal law to limit adding more supreme court judges. Pass federal laws to fix all of the shit that has been happening, including voting reform and gerrymandering with a better voting system A second reconstruction era.

        It would be easy to fix, all the democrats need is a solid majority which they would get on election reform or abortion alone.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          10 months ago

          they should have. They could have. People said this… like when RvW was on the chopping block.

          But no. “We can’t do that because then they’d do it!”

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          The problem with federal law is that the next Congress can ignore it. Never forget Congress writes the laws and that means there’s functionally no way to bind a future Congress short of the Constitution.

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        That’s not viable. It requires getting a bunch of Republicans to agree to it, and getting even one Republican to listen to reason is a rare thing.

    • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      To be fair, Bush had won the popular vote by the time he nominated any justices.

      • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yes, but he wouldn’t have even been president in the first place if it wasn’t for the Supreme Court, and specifically Clarence Thomas.

        • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          True. And he had an incumbency advantage in 2004. I was just pointing out that Bush’s appointments weren’t as simple as “he didn’t win the popular vote.”

          • Drusas@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Right, but he wouldn’t have even been running in 2004 if he hadn’t been handed the presidency in 2000.

      • athos77@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        He won the popular vote by taking the country into an unjustified war because he has daddy issues.