Public Opinion Of US Supreme Court Deteriorates Following Obamacare Decision

Tyler Durden's picture

While we are still collecting various public polling results showing popular sentiment in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's surprising Obamacare ruling last week, the first results out of Rasmussen show that if Judge John Roberts' goal was to somehow restory credibility in the supreme judicial entity, following his alleged flip flopping on the ACA, whereby he passed the Individual Mandate in a format never intended by the Obama administration, he has failed. From Rasmussen: "A week ago, 36% said the court was doing a good or an excellent job. That’s down to 33% today. However, the big change is a rise in negative perceptions. Today, 28% say the Supreme Court is doing a poor job. That’s up 11 points over the past week."


Public opinion of the Supreme Court has grown more negative since the highly publicized ruling on the president’s health care law was released. A growing number now believe that the high court is too liberal and that justices pursue their own agenda rather than acting impartially.


A week ago, 36% said the court was doing a good or an excellent job. That’s down to 33% today. However, the big change is a rise in negative perceptions. Today, 28% say the Supreme Court is doing a poor job. That’s up 11 points over the past week.


The new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on Friday and Saturday following the court ruling, finds that 56% believe justices pursue their own political agenda rather than generally remain impartial. That’s up five points from a week ago. Just half as many -- 27% -- believe the justices remain impartial. (To see survey question wording, click here.)


Thirty-seven percent (37%) now believe the Supreme Court is too liberal, while 22% think it's too conservative. A week ago, public opinion was much more evenly divided:  32% said it was too liberal and 25% said too conservative.


In the latest survey, 31% now believe the balance is about right.

Not surprisingly, the SCOTUS is merely the latest entity to fall cleanly into the political class divide, showing that when ideology is concerned, Justice is certainly not blind:

A week ago, Republicans were generally positive about the court. Forty-two percent (42%) of GOP voters gave the justices good or excellent marks, while 14% said poor. Now, the numbers are strongly negative — 20% say good or excellent and 43% say poor.


Among Democrats, the numbers went from mixed to very positive. A week ago, 35% of those in the president’s party gave the high court positive reviews and 22% offered a negative assessment. Now, 50% are positive and only 11% give the high court negative marks.


As for those not affiliated with either major party, the positives remained unchanged at 31%. However, among unaffiliated voters, the number rating the court's performance as poor doubled from 14% a week ago to 30% today.


Among Political Class voters, positive ratings for the Supreme Court soared to 55%, compared to 27% a week ago.


Among Mainstream voters, the court’s ratings headed in the opposite direction. A week ago, 34% of Mainstream voters said the court was doing a good or excellent job and 17% gave it poor ratings. The numbers have now reversed — 22% positive and 36% negative.


Democrats are now fairly evenly divided as to whether justices pursue their own agenda or remain impartial. However, by lopsided margins, Republicans and unaffiliated voters believe that they pursue their own agenda.

Next up it is Germany's constitutional court to confirm that when it comes to preserving the status quo, impartial and objective ethics and values, not to mention laws and mores, are irrelevant. The only problem, there and here, is the one day at a time, taking liberty with the heretofore endless supplies of other people's money, which allowed everyone to keep a blind eye to the government's encroaching take over of all seemingly impartial institutions, is slowly ending, as the above mentioned "enablement" money is now practically gone.

And no amount of "collateral expansions" by the ECB or other central banks can fix this realization at the heart of all modern-day problems.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Yes_Questions's picture



Public Opinion Of US Supreme Court Deteriorates Following Obamacare Decision.  A long slide of decline since Bush V. Gore highlighted along the way with Citizens United V. FEC.



Jay Gould Esq.'s picture

"Public opinion ?" Inconsequential.

J. Glover Roberts Jr. is now the toast of the Beltway cocktail party circuit, which is of much more "professional" import.

El Viejo's picture

Extra, Extra:  It's unanimous. All three branches of govt now support big business over personal freedoms!

Tirpitz's picture

But that's very understandable: There's more than 300 million of us suggers, expendables, cannon fodder, while the personhood-corporations reach numbers only in the thousands, and thus need the extra protection of bought law, over-reaching over-regulation, and state-guaranteed, state-supported monopolies to operate in.

DeadFred's picture

The primary respect the three branches get now comes from their monopoly on the use of force. Do what they say or else they will shoot you or stuff you in a cage.

I'm somewhat embarrassed to say I really expected more of them. One more notch up on the jaded scale.

narapoiddyslexia's picture

From what I've read of the man, Roberts couldn't care less what we think about him. His intended audience hasn't yet been born.

GetZeeGold's picture



Turns out the hooker was a whore....didn't see that coming.


Wonder what the dollar amount was? I'm gonna say at least seven zeros.


IAmNotMark's picture

Extra, Extra: It's unanimous. All three branches of govt now support big government over personal freedoms!

There.  Fixed it for you.

Manthong's picture

All of the veils are down now.

Yes_Questions's picture






Future Jim's picture

The shroud of the dark side has fallen. Impossible to see the future is.

GOSPLAN HERO's picture

It is the America Abe Lincoln wanted.

... Federal power uber alles!

... the states are just bill payers.

... obey me or I'll kill you.


Mr. Fix's picture

@I am not Mark:

That needed to be fixed,

You beat me to it.

CatoRenasci's picture

As the Brits used to say, Roberts "ratted".


Oh, somewhere in this favored world the sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
But there is no joy in America - mighty Roberts has sold out.


(apologies to Ernest Lawrence Thayer)

max2205's picture

Bad is good when reading through 1%'ers glasses

lakecity55's picture

Cloward-Piven. Crash the entire economy thru impossible demands, establish New Communist State.

dbomb12's picture

That is part of the plan, the other is to discredit all branchs of Government

The communist agenda, Current Communist Goals EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 10, 1963 .

#29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
#30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
F. Bastiat's picture

It seems clear that John Roberts sacrificed his oath for political expediency.

Temporalist's picture

He sacrificed the constitution and the American people to corporate interests.

F. Bastiat's picture

And which "corporate" interests are those?'s picture

Those who will profit from government mandated "healthcare," of course.

LowProfile's picture


Just go see which healthcare stocks soared after the supreme deciders decided.

Harbanger's picture

If a law forces every person in the Country to buy a product what do you expect the stock to do( in the short term)?  Don't you know the timeline and particulars of the Law?  The 1st thing to go will be employer provided health plans because it's cheaper to pay the fine.   By design, the specifics in the Obamacare law are going to make it impossible for any private sector health insurance company to stay in business.  It all shifts to Govt. in a few years and you can have your Utopian dream of banana Republic free HC.

Miffed Microbiologist's picture

Absolutely by design! They couldn't get single payer the first time around so they created a situation where it is inevitable. God these assholes make me sick and people are so blind to it. People at my work were cheering when the ruling went down. They deserve their fate but I'm going to suffer as well. Truth doesn't always sit you free.


LowProfile's picture

Go to cash.  Buy gold, food, and enough guns to keep them at bay.

You may not suffer as much as you think.

bigkahuna's picture

Yep, single payer is on the way. The "regulated" plan will cause a crisis that will bring in healthcare from big brother and only big brother. 

I guess you can hope you don't get sick.

tmosley's picture

When a plot that is too complex to understand is carried out, the best way to tell who was behind it is to assume it went according to plan, then look at who benefited.

The government won't be providing health insurance directly.  They will contract with 1-5 large companies, and throw the rest under the bus, in typical fascist fashion.

F. Bastiat's picture

Occam's razor and spontaneous economic order beg to differ.  But of course you somehow magically know better than three hundred years of experience.

Bob's picture

My 30 second search:

Hospital operators, and companies that own hospitals, celebrated the ruling. HCA Holdings (HCA, Fortune 500), United Health Services (UHS, Fortune 500), Community Health Systems (CYH, Fortune 500), Health Management Associates (HMA, Fortune 500) and Tenet Healthcare Corp (THC, Fortune 500) surged between 5% to 10%.

Providers of Medicare and Medicaid also got a substantial lift. Wellcare Health Plans (WCG, Fortune 500) rose 9% and Amerigroup (AGP, Fortune 500) jumped 5%. Centene Corp. (CNC, Fortune 500) rose 2% and Molina Healthcare (MOH, Fortune 500) rose 9%.

F. Bastiat's picture

So you're claiming that John Roberts is somehow magically beholden to the people making up the organizations you've listed above.  What evidence can you provide in support of your assertations?

LowProfile's picture

LOL, demand answers to things you can easily look up yourself, change the subject, create a straw man for beating (thanks duncangraper) and then demand incontrovertible proof..!

You understand you're a rancid fucking statist cunt tool, right?  And a shitty one at that?


duncangraper's picture

Seems like you claimed a magical connection when confronted with who benefited explicitally form the ruling.  At least try to straw man with a little more deftness

F. Bastiat's picture

The English language is certainly not something benefitted, explicitly or otherwise, in your presence.

A Lunatic's picture

How about the fucking IRS?

CaptainObvious's picture


Blue Cross/Blue Shield in all its incarnations

United Health Group



Humana Care


Glaxo Smith Kline



Johnson & Johnson

Astra Zeneca

Eli Lilly

Bristol Myers

Bayer Health


I'm sure there are more, but these are the ones who will benefit the most...the biggest healthcare providers and the biggest pharmaceutical corporations. 

Disenchanted's picture


F. Bastiat imposter said:


"Name some names. Be specific."


For one, WellPoint whose 'former' executive VP Liz Fowler basically wrote the legislation(ACA). This below written before the decision was handed down:


The ACA is designed to bail out the for-profit healthcare industry before their profits flat line and the court’s decision will reflect how best to do that.

The health insurance industry spent $1 million a day to influence the national healthcare reform debate in their favor. Written by Liz Fowler of the nation’s largest insurer, WellPoint, the law delivers 30 million new customers and $447 billion in taxpayer subsidies directly to the private health insurance companies.

If fully implemented, the ACA will leave at least 23 million people uninsured, egregious insurance company practices such as charging older people more for policies, denials and delays in approving care, and high rates of medical bankruptcies due to inadequate insurance plans, will continue.



excerpt from:  Constitutional or Not, It’s a Win-Win for the Health Insurance Industry

Disenchanted's picture



Further down in the article at that link it says this:


4) Upholding the law: This Supreme Court has a track record of ruling in favor of the corporate interests (see Citizens United), and the ACA is based on legislation crafted by the health insurance industry. This should not be a surprising outcome. If the law is thrown out and the status quo in healthcare continues, the insurance companies are left with a playing field stacked in their favor without regulations that may eventually threaten profits. Costs will continue to skyrocket; more people will be without insurance.

cossack55's picture

What else. Big Med and Big Pharma.  Better fascism thru chemistry.

Yes_Questions's picture





It has electrolytes.

F. Bastiat's picture

Feel free to define "fascism".  I don't think you can do it.

LowProfile's picture

Inexperienced troll is inexperienced.


F. Bastiat's picture

Apparently you can't either.  When you're able to define the terms you bandy about, people might start taking you seriously.

LowProfile's picture

I've always been partial to this portion of the subject of fascism since it seems to most accurately describe what we are becoming.

You rancid fucking statist cunt.

Manthong's picture

Define “fascism”? 

Maybe it’s like “art” but I’ll give it a try..

Fascism: “A form of despotic government that blends the primacy of the state with the interests of a dominant financial and industrial elite to exploit the citizenry and the markets through the deception that its policies are designed for the good of the citizenry and markets, therefore, what is good for the state is good for the citizenry.”

(I made a little edit on this, and I think it is pretty close now.)

cossack55's picture

Define people.  Define apparently. Define seriously. What an ass.

F. Bastiat's picture

I thought you'd like that one. 

The best overview I've seen are the 18 neo-socialist tendencies that Stuart Chase laid down in "The Road We Are Traveling". Political System X he called it.  "Free Enterprise into X" for the "fundamental transformation" process.

The ghost of Stuart Chase lives on in the Hawaiian Allende.

vened's picture


Fascism ( /?fæ??z?m/) is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2] Fascists seek elevation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry and culture through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through disciplineindoctrinationphysical training, and eugenics.[3][4] Fascism seeks to eradicate perceived foreign influences that are deemed to be causing degeneration of the nation or of not fitting into the national culture.[5]

Fascists have commonly presented themselves as politically syncretic—opposing firm association with any section of the left-right spectrum, considering it inadequate to describe their beliefs,[6][7] though fascism's goal to promote the rule of people deemed innately superior while seeking to purge society of people deemed innately inferior has been noted as being a prominentfar-right stance.[8] Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatismliberalism, and the two major forms of socialismcommunism and social democracy.[9] To achieve its goals, the fascist state purges forces, ideas, people, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration.[10] Fascism promotes political violence and war as forms ofdirect action that promote national rejuvenation, spirit and vitality.[3][11] Fascists commonly utilize paramilitary organizations to commit or threaten violence against their opponents.[12]

The fascist party is a vanguard party designed to initiate a revolution from above and to organize the nation upon fascist principles.[13] The fascist party and state is led by a supreme leader who exercises a dictatorship over the party, the government and other state institutions.[14] Fascism condemns liberal democracy for basing government legitimacy on quantity rather than quality, and for causing quarreling partisan politics, but fascists deny that they are entirely against democracy.[15][16]Fascists claim that their ideology is a trans-class movement, advocating resolution to domestic class conflict within a nation to secure national solidarity.[17] It claims that its goal of cultural nationalization of society emancipates the nation's proletariat, and promotes the assimilation of all classes into proletarian national culture.[17] While fascism opposes domestic class conflict, fascism believes that bourgeois-proletarian conflict primarily exists in national conflict between proletarian nations versus bourgeois nations; fascism declares its opposition to bourgeois nations and declares its support for the victory of proletarian nations.[18]

Fascism advocates a state-controlled and regulated mixed economy, the principle economic goal of fascism is to achieve national autarky to secure national independence, through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[19] It promotes the use and primacy of regulated private enterprise and private property contingent upon service to the nation, but where private enterprise and private property are failing, inefficient, or unable to fulfill fascist goals, it supports the use of state enterprise andstate property in those circumstances.[19] At the same time, fascists are hostile to financial capitalplutocracy, and "the power of money".[19] It supports criminalization of strikes by non-Fascist union employees and lockouts by employers because it deems these acts as prejudicial to the national community.[20]; only the Fascist unions were allowed to strike