Mediaboss Marketing

A key ingredient for a healthy democracy is an independent and (to the extent possible) an apolitical judiciary. Yet recent polls show public trust in the judicial branch of the federal government reaching its lowest point in decades, primarily among Democrats. That is entirely because the judicial branch, and especially the U.S. Supreme Court, isnt ruling the way Democrats want. And their proposed efforts to fix the Court would destroy its credibility.

According to a recent Gallup poll, Forty-seven percent of U.S. adults say they have a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the judicial branch of the federal government that is headed by the Supreme Court. This represents a 20-percentage-point drop from two years ago Its also a 33-percentage-point drop from 1999, when 80 percent trusted the judicial system.

But its the partisan breakdown thats most revealing, and concerning. Gallup says that 67 percent of Republicans trust the judicial branch. While that number is down from 84 percent in 2020, its still very high and generally in the range of the overall approval rating since the 1970s.

But Gallup puts the Democratic judicial approval rating at 25 percent, down from a Democratic high of 80 percent in 2009, and 74 percent as recently as 2016.

Independents approval came in at 46 percent, which represents a relatively small but steady decline since the late 1990s.

The fact that only some 25 percent of Democrats trust the judicial system should concern everyone. They have already made it very clear that they want to change the composition of the Supreme Court, and would have already done so if they had had the votes. We dont know the exact number, but it seems Democrats werent that far from having the votes they needed (that is, if they could have bypassed a Senate filibuster).

Had they been able to pack the court with four or more new justices, any notion of an independent Supreme Court would have vanished.

Ironically, its Democrats and the three liberal Court justices who claim the Court is politicized.

Justice Elena Kagan recently told students at Salve Regina University in Rhode Island, The very worst moments have been times when judges have even essentially reflected one partys or one ideologys set of views in their legal decisions.

Heres the problem with her assessment: It is the three liberals, or four when there was that many, on the Court who vote in lockstep. It is only conservatives, including the more moderate Chief Justice John Roberts, who ever vote with the liberals on issues that are closely aligned with political ideology.

It was Chief Justice John Roberts who voted with the Courts liberal justices in 2012 upholding the individual mandate to have health insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). No one seriously thought any of the liberals would have voted with the conservatives.

It was Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy who voted with the liberal justices in 2015 rejecting a state challenge to ObamaCare. No one seriously thought any of the liberals would have voted with the conservatives.

It was Kennedy who voted with the liberal justices in 2015 to grant a constitutional right to gay marriage. No one seriously thought any of the liberals would have voted with the conservatives.

It was Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh who voted with the liberal justices last year to allow Bidens nationwide pandemic-related ban on evictions to remain in place. No one seriously thought any of the liberals would have voted with the conservatives.

It was Justice Amy Coney Barrett who sided with the liberal justices to block an execution in Alabama. No one well, you get the idea.

Yes, the five conservative justices and the more moderate chief justice often vote together, but that reflects their originalist judicial philosophy.

But the lefts judicial philosophy is swayed by any number of things, including public opinion. Thats why they sometimes refer to it as the living Constitution.

As the newest justice, Ketanji Jackson Brown, recently told a judicial conference, If, over time, the court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment, that is a dangerous thing for democracy.

She has it exactly backwards. Its playing to public sentiment thats dangerous for democracy.

Merrill Matthews is a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas, Texas. Follow him on Twitter @MerrillMatthews.

Excerpt from:
The real threat to democracy: Declining trust in the courts - The Hill