[Quote]Don't let the cheering crowds outside the Supreme Court fool you. The largest share of Americans in 30 years has a negative view of the Supreme Court, according to a July survey by the Pew Research Center.
The Pew survey, released Thursday, found that 43 percent of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the Supreme Court, compared with 48 percent of Americans who have a favorable opinion of it.
Supreme Court’s Image Declines
[t]http://www.people-press.org/files/2015/07/7-29-2015-12-25-38-PM.png[/t]
The increase in unfavorable views of the Supreme Court was driven by a rise in unfavorable views among Republicans. The percentage of Republicans who said they have an unfavorable opinion of the court went from 40 percent in March to 61 percent in the new survey.
The Pew survey results could have been driven by dissatisfaction with recent Supreme Court decisions. The Supreme Court issued rulings in late June legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide and upholding the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies for buying insurance on state-run exchanges, both of which rankled conservatives. Sixty-three percent of survey respondents opposed to same-sex marriage, and 58 percent of respondents opposed to the Affordable Care Act, have an unfavorable opinion of the Supreme Court.
[img]http://www.people-press.org/files/2015/07/7-29-2015-12-26-37-PM.png[/img][/Quote]
Source: [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-popularity_55b93f3ae4b095423d0dba63?cps=gravity_5019_-7943170061155216053[/url]
Gay marriage ruling angers all the stereotypical religious middle class adults in their 40s and up. That case is what people are judging the court on, not on the rest of the matters.
That graph is dumb, why even bother to show the unfavorable rating if its just a mirror of the favorable rating.
Republicans. Who would have thought? :rolleyes:
Conservatives unhappy with Obamacare and gay marriage sentences. Absolutely shocking.
[QUOTE=Exho;48367929]That graph is dumb, why even bother to show the unfavorable rating if its just a mirror of the favorable rating.[/QUOTE]
Because it's not
[QUOTE=smurfy;48367985]Because it's not[/QUOTE]
kind of is, its not like there's a 3rd statistic, the unfavorable rating is going to be part of the favorable rating
[QUOTE=Sableye;48367996]kind of is, its not like there's a 3rd statistic, the unfavorable rating is going to be part of the favorable rating[/QUOTE]
There is also a percentage with no opinion, which you wouldn't be able to tell without both ratings.
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;48367793]Gay marriage ruling angers all the stereotypical religious middle class adults in their 40s and up. That case is what people are judging the court on, not on the rest of the matters.[/QUOTE]
Trend started going down before the ruling though. Remember the Court did have that "corporations are people" vote too. It isn't just old conservatives with a negative view of them.
[QUOTE=Sableye;48367996]kind of is, its not like there's a 3rd statistic, the unfavorable rating is going to be part of the favorable rating[/QUOTE]
The third statistic is "Don't know", which in this case stays within single figures (this year's number being 9%). In certain cases the number of "Don't knows" is more significant (like if you ask people what they think of Random GOP Candidate #47) so showing both numbers is good practice for the sake of clarity. If they just showed the favourable rating, it could mean that 48% have a favourable view, 9% unfavourable, and everyone else doesn't know.
This would be true even if the Supreme Court ruled Obamacare and Gay Marriage unconstitutional. This will always be true if the Supreme Court take up a hot-button topic.
I would personally take Gay Marriage not being legal nation-wide if it means that Citizen's United would be overturned.
Supreme Court is still the same SC that made the Citizen's United ruling, so in my eyes they still suck ass.
I feel like everyone is downhearted these days.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;48368354]I would personally take Gay Marriage not being legal nation-wide if it means that Citizen's United would be overturned.
Supreme Court is still the same SC that made the Citizen's United ruling, so in my eyes they still suck ass.[/QUOTE]
So you would rather gay people not be allowed to marry anymore just so that the government can limit political donations by corporations? If you're not gay, that's awfully selfish and disrespectful to gay couples.
[QUOTE=Exho;48367929]That graph is dumb, why even bother to show the unfavorable rating if its just a mirror of the favorable rating.[/QUOTE]
tell me
what is 48+43
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;48368354]I would personally take Gay Marriage not being legal nation-wide if it means that Citizen's United would be overturned.
Supreme Court is still the same SC that made the Citizen's United ruling, so in my eyes they still suck ass.[/QUOTE]
So civil rights are less important than political control? I wouldn't trade my respect as [I]a tax paying citizen deserving of equal rights[/I] for anything. It's disgusting that you even treat it like a bargaining chip.
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;48367793]Gay marriage ruling angers all the stereotypical religious middle class adults in their 40s and up. That case is what people are judging the court on, not on the rest of the matters.[/QUOTE]
i think its mostly intelligent people who are angry given that the supreme court shouldnt legislate from the bench, it sets a dangerous precedent.
Liberals are mad that Israel is still getting US support, Conservatives are mad that homosexual marriage is in the spotlight.
Along with how crazier the political race is getting, I feel that extremism is gonna go too far, this year. Might get a bit messy.
[QUOTE=mr kjerr;48375444]i think its mostly intelligent people who are angry given that the supreme court shouldnt legislate from the bench, it sets a dangerous precedent.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you understand the point of supreme courts. They don't simply 'legislate from the bench', they interpret the constitution and laws passed by the legislative and executive, especially the constitution seeing that the bill of rights isn't very in-depth. Yes they do create law through case law, but that's for matters of consistency in future cases through precedents.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48368585]So you would rather gay people not be allowed to marry anymore just so that the government can limit political donations by corporations? If you're not gay, that's awfully selfish and disrespectful to gay couples.[/QUOTE]
Gay marriage was already slowly being legalized and was an inevitable thing due to the way society is going. Citizen's United is going to turn our politics into even more of a shithole and cause common people to have even less of a say.
[QUOTE=mr kjerr;48375444]i think its mostly intelligent people who are angry given that the supreme court shouldnt legislate from the bench, it sets a dangerous precedent.[/QUOTE]
No law was written legalizing gay marriage. They simply ruled that gay marriage is protected by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Aka, gay marriage should've been legal since 1868. Supreme Court doesn't make laws. They enforce constitutionality. The only people upset with the ruling that I've seen are people against gay rights. It's a simple civil rights interpretation.
[QUOTE=matt000024;48376182]Gay marriage was already slowly being legalized and was an inevitable thing due to the way society is going. Citizen's United is going to turn our politics into even more of a shithole and cause common people to have even less of a say.[/QUOTE]
Those aren't legislating from the bench, those are simply interpreting the laws. The Supreme Court recognised that governments preventing a gay couple from marrying is unconstitutional, and that governments restricting the first amendment rights of associations of individuals is also unconstitutional.
[QUOTE=Exho;48367929]That graph is dumb, why even bother to show the unfavorable rating if its just a mirror of the favorable rating.[/QUOTE]
Because there is also neutrality. It might be better if it was one of those cumulative bar charts
That's good IMO
Don't any of you think it's ridiculous that people favor the smallest group of individuals that are appointed for life over their own elected officials, many times over?
I can only hope that one day the approval rating of the Church is as low as Congress.
[editline]4th August 2015[/editline]
and the military as well
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;48376759]
I can only hope that one day the approval rating of the Church is as low as Congress.
[/QUOTE]
How does this contribute to the thread at all other than to start a shitstorm?
[QUOTE=Exho;48367929]That graph is dumb, why even bother to show the unfavorable rating if its just a mirror of the favorable rating.[/QUOTE]
So you can see what the favorable rating is without doing math.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48368585]So you would rather gay people not be allowed to marry anymore just so that the government can limit political donations by corporations? If you're not gay, that's awfully selfish and disrespectful to gay couples.[/QUOTE]
I feel that in the long run, politicians getting bought by corporations (and banks) is going to have a much more severe and disastrous effect than gay marriage taking longer to legalize everywhere.
The more power the plutocracy has, the more power (and money) they can take away from the common man until little to no trace of democracy remains. Fighting that is of the biggest importance, because every other fight (climate change, gay rights, transgender rights, etc.) depends on democracy.
[QUOTE=matt000024;48376996]How does this contribute to the thread at all other than to start a shitstorm?[/QUOTE]
the church, military, and supreme court have always been the highest approved, most trusted institutions in the united states
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;48385547]the church, military, and supreme court have always been the highest approved, most trusted institutions in the united states[/QUOTE]
I think that's funny about the military. There seems to be the whole checks and balances against the federal government as if it can't be trusted, eg one of the original intentions of the second amendment so that the government wouldn't go authoritarian, however it's the military that should be most-deeply distrusted. Many coups and revolutions, even in very recent history such as Egypt and Thailand, are done by the military acting independently of the elected government. I'd put more trust in elected officials rather than the most powerful military force in the world.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48385631]I think that's funny about the military. There seems to be the whole checks and balances against the federal government as if it can't be trusted, eg one of the original intentions of the second amendment so that the government wouldn't go authoritarian, however it's the military that should be most-deeply distrusted. Many coups and revolutions, even in very recent history such as Egypt and Thailand, are done by the military acting independently of the elected government. I'd put more trust in elected officials rather than the most powerful military force in the world.[/QUOTE]
Remember that the men and women that do the dirty work of the military are young people at the start of their llives and most of them want to do whatever they can to help others and the country as a whole. The idea of a bunch of evil commander s getting together to plan a coup is a little farfetched. Because the people recieving the orders would have objections to it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
