SCOTUS

SCOTUSA new CBS News/New York Times poll finds that six in ten Americans oppose lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices, with respondents agreeing with the idea that such appointments give the justices too much power.

Respondents were asked this question: “Which opinion comes closer to your own appointing Supreme Court Justices for life is a good thing because it helps keep them independent from political pressures, or appointing Supreme Court Justices for life is a bad thing because it gives them too much power?”

Just 33 percent said they believed lifetime appointments are a good thing because it keeps justices independent. Sixty percent said they disapprove of lifetime appointments.

Three in four said they believe the current Supreme Court justices sometimes let their own personal or political views influence their decisions. The belief crossed party lines, with roughly the same percentage of Republicans, Democrats and independents expressing that view. Only 13 percent said the justices decide cases based solely on legal analysis.

Asked specifically how the justices will decide the challenge to the federal health care law passed in 2010, 55 percent said they will be influenced by their personal or political views. Thirty-two percent said the decision will be grounded strictly in legal analysis.

Overall, more Americans approve than disapprove of how the Supreme Court is handling its job, though the court’s overall job approval rating is less than 50 percent. Forty-four percent – including 51 percent of Democrats – approve of the way the justices are performing. Thirty-six percent disapprove. Another one in five doesn’t have an opinion.

Far worse are perceptions of Congress. Just 15 percent of Americans said in the CBS News/New York Times poll that they approve of the job Congress is doing, while 77 percent disapprove. Those numbers are actually slightly improved from February, when only 10 percent approved of the job Congress is doing.

Source: Link>>>

Share Button
  • LM

    A constitutional amendment would be the best way to change it. The Constitution does not set a term but specifies that the member will serve during “good behavior”. What was life expectancy in 1787?……back them who expected a 30 year service of a justice which some have done? How come a commercial airline pilot is assumed to lose the mental acuity to fly straight at a certain age but a Justice like Bader-Ginsberg, who naps on duty or has narcolepsy, is OK? A commercial airline pilot has to pass tests, a check ride, every six months (the physical exam too, but I talking about piloting skills here not physical impairment) but no mental test is required of Justice John Roberts who rules that a penalty for violating a federal law/order, is a tax? Surely he warrants an exam for mental impairment….not the only one. I would say term limited to X years or Y age, whichever comes first.

  • PT

    I agree about SCOTUS selection being very important as that will set the agenda for how far to the left we go. We need to bounce back after too many years of LibTard judges including all three of those senile females. I do not think that a lifetime tenure is in the best interest of the United States. Don’t know how you would change it though.