The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Favorability of US Supreme Court Justices by Partisan Affiliation
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Net favorability of current US supreme court justices, by partisan affiliation:

For naifs suffering from the delusion that the highest judicial body in the land is anything close to impartial, the inverse correlation between Democrat and Republican approval is a nearly perfect .98. In other words, Democrat approval of a justice is a virtually perfect predictor of Republican disapproval and vice versa. Since we have separate ideas of law and justice, perhaps we should have separate countries as well.

In a depressingly familiar story for those on the right, the only justice to have net approval from the party opposed to his confirmation and net disapproval from the party that supported it was nominated by a Republican president and confirmed by a Republican-controlled senate. Is a contemporary instance of the converse case, a Democrat-approved justice ending up as a Republican champion, remotely conceivable? The GOP isn’t called the stupid party for nothing.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology • Tags: Law, Polling 
Hide 16 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. the only justice to have net approval from the party opposed to his confirmation and net disapproval from the party that supported it was nominated by a Republican president and confirmed by a Republican-controlled senate. … The GOP isn’t called the stupid party for nothing.

    When GW apointed Roberts, the GOP(e) was a Stupid Globalist Corporate party, virtually indistinguishable from the DNC/CCP. The GOP is currently in transition, becoming the smart party embracing MAGA Populism. This change includes rejecting Judges aligned with DNC/CCP/GOP(e) Globalism.

    The surprise is not that Swamp Critter Roberts is doing badly with Intelligent MAGA Populists. The surprise is that GW accidentally nominated someone competent in Alito. Ultimately, Alito’s belief in God allowed him to escape the miasma of Corporate GOP(e) Elitism.

    PEACE 😇

  2. Since we have separate ideas of law and justice, perhaps we should have separate countries as well.

    Amen. My idea about law and justice is we ought to have some. The entire gigantic federal entity reeks of corruption. Check out the independents. They know that both parties suck.

    Anybody can read the Constitution and know what it says. But only nine political apppointees can know what it means. Living document my ass. The Constitution died at Appomattox.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @WorkingClass


    The Constitution died at Appomattox.
     
    Good line. Hard to disagree, and I'm descended from Unionists.

    Check out the independents.
     
    Interestingly, the Independents' favorite is ... [drum roll] ... Clarence Thomas: the most conservative justice on the Court. So maybe there's something to this Independent thing after all. Or maybe just everyone likes a Based Black Guy.

    The other thing that jumps out at me from AudEp's chart is that the Republican approval columns correlate much better with the actual decision record of each judge than the Democrat approval columns do. The Democrats' approval seems much more polluted by recency (milquetoast newbs Kavanaugh and Barrett are most hated by Dems) and by perceived celebrity (the quiet conservative Alito escapes most Dem calumny).

    The implications of this are 1) that Repubs are following actual decisions while Dems are just doing whatever their media masters tell them, and 2) that the Teddy Roosevelt Doctrine (walk softly, big stick) works: Alito has been quietly sabotaging Leftist subversion for over a decade, but because he makes very little noise about it, Dems and the media hardly notice.
  3. I wonder what RGB’s numbers were before she croaked extremely tardily.

    Whatever you think about Roberts, at least he didn’t adopt Haitians and menstruate in the Senate about how much he loves BLM, in contrast to Trump’s last apointee

  4. All SCOTUS justices are corrupt minions of the Deep State.

    The SCOTUS has passed down egregious decisions that abridge the First Amendment and show contempt for the concept of representative democracy. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing stupid SCOTUS decisions First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.
    These decisions have codified that money is free speech thereby giving entities of wealth and power total influence in elections.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    @Realist

    Let's not forget the evisceration of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution with the expansion of police-state powers by granting "immunity from prosecution and culpability" for police officers who abuse their office, the "drug exception" on searches, and the approval of "asset forfeiture" which is actually "robbery under color of authority".
    The "supreme court" is not "supreme" at all...

    Replies: @Realist

  5. @Realist
    All SCOTUS justices are corrupt minions of the Deep State.

    The SCOTUS has passed down egregious decisions that abridge the First Amendment and show contempt for the concept of representative democracy. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing stupid SCOTUS decisions First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.
    These decisions have codified that money is free speech thereby giving entities of wealth and power total influence in elections.

    Replies: @anarchyst

    Let’s not forget the evisceration of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution with the expansion of police-state powers by granting “immunity from prosecution and culpability” for police officers who abuse their office, the “drug exception” on searches, and the approval of “asset forfeiture” which is actually “robbery under color of authority”.
    The “supreme court” is not “supreme” at all…

    • Replies: @Realist
    @anarchyst


    The “supreme court” is not “supreme” at all…
     
    Exactly there are so many examples of SCOTUS malfeasance and corruption, it is hard to remember them all.
  6. There are limits to what SCOTUS can do. As Scalia said: (1)

    “…A lot of stuff that’s stupid is not unconstitutional.”

    “I gave a talk once where I said they ought to pass out to all federal judges a stamp, and the stamp says—Whack! [Pounds his fist.]—STUPID BUT ­CONSTITUTIONAL. Whack! [Pounds again.] STUPID BUT ­CONSTITUTIONAL! Whack! ­STUPID BUT ­CONSTITUTIONAL … [Laughs.] And then somebody sent me one.”

    To fix this mess the U.S. needs a Populist President to nominate and a MAGA Senate to confirm Justices.

    Trump was badly hampered by the need to obtain GOP(e) Senator votes for confirmation of Judicial & Cabinet picks. To prevent this problem from recurring, the New GOP is continuing to drive GOP(e) swamp critters out of the Senate.
     

    McConnell is already planning his exit, although it has not been formally announced. Why? Look at his numbers among Republicans: (2)

    Now, nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of Republican voters say they have a favorable view of Trump compared with less than a third (just 28 percent) who say the same of McConnell, according to new polling conducted by Ipsos and published by Reuters this week. In fact, McConnell’s favorability rating is far closer to Trump’s unfavorability rating (24 percent) among Republican

    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.overlawyered.com/2017/02/stupid-but-constitutional/

    (2) https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/just-28-percent-of-republicans-view-mcconnell-favorably-while-three-quarters-back-trump-poll/ar-BB1erYkF
     

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @Servant of Gla'aki
    @A123

    Thune's definitely in jeopardy here in South Dakota. I never would've thought it possible, but he basically did the one thing that could endanger his political career ie. come between Trump and the state's electorate.

  7. @anarchyst
    @Realist

    Let's not forget the evisceration of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution with the expansion of police-state powers by granting "immunity from prosecution and culpability" for police officers who abuse their office, the "drug exception" on searches, and the approval of "asset forfeiture" which is actually "robbery under color of authority".
    The "supreme court" is not "supreme" at all...

    Replies: @Realist

    The “supreme court” is not “supreme” at all…

    Exactly there are so many examples of SCOTUS malfeasance and corruption, it is hard to remember them all.

  8. Since we have separate ideas of law and justice, perhaps we should have separate countries as well.

    Energizer Bunny part IX.

  9. @A123
    There are limits to what SCOTUS can do. As Scalia said: (1)

    “…A lot of stuff that’s stupid is not unconstitutional.”

    “I gave a talk once where I said they ought to pass out to all federal judges a stamp, and the stamp says—Whack! [Pounds his fist.]—STUPID BUT ­CONSTITUTIONAL. Whack! [Pounds again.] STUPID BUT ­CONSTITUTIONAL! Whack! ­STUPID BUT ­CONSTITUTIONAL … [Laughs.] And then somebody sent me one.”
     

    To fix this mess the U.S. needs a Populist President to nominate and a MAGA Senate to confirm Justices.

    Trump was badly hampered by the need to obtain GOP(e) Senator votes for confirmation of Judicial & Cabinet picks. To prevent this problem from recurring, the New GOP is continuing to drive GOP(e) swamp critters out of the Senate.

    https://i.imgur.com/hhBM5tS.jpg
     

    McConnell is already planning his exit, although it has not been formally announced. Why? Look at his numbers among Republicans: (2)


    Now, nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of Republican voters say they have a favorable view of Trump compared with less than a third (just 28 percent) who say the same of McConnell, according to new polling conducted by Ipsos and published by Reuters this week. In fact, McConnell's favorability rating is far closer to Trump's unfavorability rating (24 percent) among Republican
     
    PEACE 😇
    __________

    (1) https://www.overlawyered.com/2017/02/stupid-but-constitutional/

    (2) https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/just-28-percent-of-republicans-view-mcconnell-favorably-while-three-quarters-back-trump-poll/ar-BB1erYkF
     

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEqovs-XkAM0ZDD.jpg

    Replies: @Servant of Gla'aki

    Thune’s definitely in jeopardy here in South Dakota. I never would’ve thought it possible, but he basically did the one thing that could endanger his political career ie. come between Trump and the state’s electorate.

  10. @WorkingClass

    Since we have separate ideas of law and justice, perhaps we should have separate countries as well.
     
    Amen. My idea about law and justice is we ought to have some. The entire gigantic federal entity reeks of corruption. Check out the independents. They know that both parties suck.

    Anybody can read the Constitution and know what it says. But only nine political apppointees can know what it means. Living document my ass. The Constitution died at Appomattox.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    The Constitution died at Appomattox.

    Good line. Hard to disagree, and I’m descended from Unionists.

    Check out the independents.

    Interestingly, the Independents’ favorite is … [drum roll] … Clarence Thomas: the most conservative justice on the Court. So maybe there’s something to this Independent thing after all. Or maybe just everyone likes a Based Black Guy.

    The other thing that jumps out at me from AudEp’s chart is that the Republican approval columns correlate much better with the actual decision record of each judge than the Democrat approval columns do. The Democrats’ approval seems much more polluted by recency (milquetoast newbs Kavanaugh and Barrett are most hated by Dems) and by perceived celebrity (the quiet conservative Alito escapes most Dem calumny).

    The implications of this are 1) that Repubs are following actual decisions while Dems are just doing whatever their media masters tell them, and 2) that the Teddy Roosevelt Doctrine (walk softly, big stick) works: Alito has been quietly sabotaging Leftist subversion for over a decade, but because he makes very little noise about it, Dems and the media hardly notice.

  11. Apparently Democrats haven’t figured out Kavanaugh and Barrett are more on their side than not. They have been completely worthless when it came to responding to the most important recent cases to show up at the Supreme Court: those regarding election illegality and fraud.

  12. The U.S. Supreme Shysters are nine unelected, unaccountable, ethics-free megalomaniacs. And the hell of it is, 330 million people are forced to live under these black-robed politicians. . . .

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Orville H. Larson


    The U.S. Supreme Shysters are nine unelected, unaccountable, ethics-free megalomaniacs. And the hell of it is, 330 million people are forced to live under these black-robed politicians. . . .
     
    Would you rather be forced to live under Kamala Harris, Adam Schiff and AOC? They're elected, and their robes are not black.

    For what it's worth, I dissent from the thread's consensus that disdains the chief justice and the Supreme Court. I think that the chief justice is doing fine and that the present Supreme Court, with the notable exception of Justice Sotomayor, is about the best the United States could hope to have. Meanwhile, democracy has run riot in the United States. Americans are fortunate still to have one federal branch that does not answer to the electorate.

    Replies: @James Charles

  13. @Orville H. Larson
    The U.S. Supreme Shysters are nine unelected, unaccountable, ethics-free megalomaniacs. And the hell of it is, 330 million people are forced to live under these black-robed politicians. . . .

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    The U.S. Supreme Shysters are nine unelected, unaccountable, ethics-free megalomaniacs. And the hell of it is, 330 million people are forced to live under these black-robed politicians. . . .

    Would you rather be forced to live under Kamala Harris, Adam Schiff and AOC? They’re elected, and their robes are not black.

    For what it’s worth, I dissent from the thread’s consensus that disdains the chief justice and the Supreme Court. I think that the chief justice is doing fine and that the present Supreme Court, with the notable exception of Justice Sotomayor, is about the best the United States could hope to have. Meanwhile, democracy has run riot in the United States. Americans are fortunate still to have one federal branch that does not answer to the electorate.

    • Replies: @James Charles
    @V. K. Ovelund

    "Democracy has run riot . . . "

    'This' democracy?

    “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
    Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
    Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented. A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues. Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. “
    https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

  14. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Orville H. Larson


    The U.S. Supreme Shysters are nine unelected, unaccountable, ethics-free megalomaniacs. And the hell of it is, 330 million people are forced to live under these black-robed politicians. . . .
     
    Would you rather be forced to live under Kamala Harris, Adam Schiff and AOC? They're elected, and their robes are not black.

    For what it's worth, I dissent from the thread's consensus that disdains the chief justice and the Supreme Court. I think that the chief justice is doing fine and that the present Supreme Court, with the notable exception of Justice Sotomayor, is about the best the United States could hope to have. Meanwhile, democracy has run riot in the United States. Americans are fortunate still to have one federal branch that does not answer to the electorate.

    Replies: @James Charles

    “Democracy has run riot . . . ”

    ‘This’ democracy?

    “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
    Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
    Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented. A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues. Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. “
    https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  15. How long before Thomas gets the Scalia treatment?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS