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."

More:

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.
F. Bastiat's picture

And he caved in like a coward.  Or at least that's what it seems right now. Constitution be damned; civilization be damned.

F. Bastiat's picture

Of course, I'm assuming he switched his vote. Which seems to be a reasonable assumption.

Ned Zeppelin's picture

Those who think the Supreme Court sold out are both supremely ignorant of the standard of review that is applied to this kind of legislation and also are so brain addled by their bias they can't even handle the facts.  The reaction that this decision has engendered tells you alot about the inhabitants of this land and it is not good. 

Read the decision, it explains it.

Ypu may not like Obama healthcare -I don't - but your remedy is political not judicial, numnutz. Storm the Capital, call your Senators, your congress critter, etc. but don't look for help from the Court.  It has been supportive of the Commerce an tax clauses for literally decades.

 

 

world_debt_slave's picture

the separation of powers, yeah, right

veyron's picture

Dems still pissed off over citizens united, not that impressed by ACA

 

Reps pissed off over ACA, dont care about CU

 

net result: more people pissed off about SCOTUS

derek_vineyard's picture

the more pissed off / unemployed / or just confused =  rally time spx

acidradio's picture

So what are we going to do, vote them off the bench? It was easier to get rid of even Kim Jong-Il!

Bob's picture

Turley has been talking alot about reforming the SCOTUS for the past month:

A BIGGER AND BETTER SUPREME COURT

http://jonathanturley.org/latest-column/

Ancona's picture

Roberts is a fucking clown. Since when can the US Government create commerce simply so that it can regulate it? That's some seriously bizarre mental gumnastics to come up with that interpretation of the constitution.

sosoome's picture

not to mention he re-defined liberty to, "do as I say or pay a tax".

roadhazard's picture

 I'm just glad that now the health care industry can't take everything I own to pay an inflated beyond all reason bill.  You all carry on.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

But Obama adviser Robert Reich said that the goal of government "healthcare" is to make young people pay more and then when they get old just let them die. In what way does that benefit you or hurt the "healthcare" industry?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7Y0TOBuG4

Bob's picture

If you're very old, we're not going to waste all the expensive technology and [treatment] to keep you alive for a couple more months.

That's a radical challenge to the "sanctity of life" or "liberty" in some way?  Are there people here who don't agree the vast sums of money spent prolonging those "golden vegetable years" are wasted?

Are "the socialists" saying that if you wanna waste your own money you aren't free to do it?

Seriously.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

It should not be up to the government to determine who will or will not receive medical care. If an individual makes an agreement with an insurance company that in exchange for a lifetime of premiums that individual will receive expensive end of life care then that is between that individual and the parties with whom they have contracted.

Robert Reich wants the government to step in and stop this activity. He wants individuals to have to pay higher premiums when they are young and healthy and then he wants to cut off medical care for those same individuals as they age and need treatment. So yeah, it's a threat to individual liberty. Seriously.

 

mjk0259's picture

Pretty much every government has already decided that everyone gets medical care to some degree regardless of if they pay or not. This just makes a few more pay. Most insurance policies already have lifetime expense limits.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

Pretty much every government has already decided that...

 

And if pretty much every government decided to jump off a bridge...

mjk0259's picture

then there would be a new government less inclined to bridge jumping

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Governments don't exactly have a history of learning from their mistakes. The world is currently going to hell and governments are doubling down. The WMDs are now in Iran and more debt is being accrued to solve the debt crisis.

nmewn's picture

If you're very old, >>>we're<<< not going to waste all the expensive technology and [treatment] to keep you alive for a couple more months.

The emphasis is on we...but we who? Who are the "New Deciders"?

But it does kinda sound like Death Panels doesn't it?

It'd be far more deviantly satisfying if they made the elderly patient appear before them (the family in the gallery, sobbing softly)...then a buzzer sounds...trap door swings open...and down the hatch they go...next stop a box.

Wouldn't it?

Bob's picture

Great story! 

OTOH, there's the exploitation of families that is daily practiced by the "health" industry for "extraordinary care" in the entirely private sector context which largely explains the, what, 8% annual rise in medical care expenses projected to consume, what, 70% of GDP in the next ten years . . . without Obamacare. 

Suppose the profit-driven health industry comes out with a golden drug that extends every life by 6 months for the low, low price of $100k per month.  You think private health care insurers will pay that?

It's gonna come down to money, regardless of how it's dressed or who delivers the news.  I worked five years in the health insurance industry, so I'm far from clueless. 

Funny that the "liberty" community is so passionate about fighting evil labor unions but gives the monopoly of the AMA upon doctor supply a free pass.  Stranger still, to me, that serving a status quo they ruthlessly define ends up playing like a 4th of July celebration, minutemen fifing as we all tearfully recite the Declaration of Independence. 

And "death panels" are the problem.   

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

It's gonna come down to money, regardless of how it's dressed or who delivers the news.

 

Right. Individuals have a right to spend their money as they see fit. The money which an individual earns and may spend on medical care is not simply up for grabs in some great pool of community money. It's private money and the individual should be able to spend that money according to their own needs and desires. Simple as that.

If all the money which individuals voluntarily spend on medical care is to be pooled and divied up between everyone then perhaps all Americans should pool their food money or gas money or beer money and let everyone draw a share regardless of their input or needs. But of course, that's the way to destroy an economy and reduce the available amount of goods and services for everyone. "Today we will make shoes," is no way to run an economy or a government.

 

Funny that the "liberty" community that is so passionate about fighting evil labor unions gives the monopoly of the AMA upon doctor supply a free pass.

 

But the liberty community has long been vocal about the power of the AMA. You see, libertarians are not nearly as cartoonish as you make them out to be.

 

100 Years of Medical Robbery

 

This weekend (June 11-13, 2004), the American Medical Association (AMA) will celebrate the 100th anniversary of its Council on Medical Education. The medical establishment understandably sees the formation of the Council as a good thing. However, some patients aren't ready to celebrate yet, and their instincts may be good.

 

http://mises.org/daily/1547

 

Here's more: https://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=site:mises....

 

And "death panels" are the problem.   

 

If you believe that rehypothecation of money you've saved or invested for your old age is a good thing then just send me a check. Put your money (which you don't really believe is yours to begin with) where your mouth is. Then go ahead and die as you don't see that as a problem.

 

 

Bob's picture

My point about the "liberty" movement is that much of what gets done in its name, as far as I can see, benefits monied pirates, in spite of the sincere and comprehensive values of many of its thinkers. 

It's good to see that some of those thinkers are indeed thinking like it seems to me they should be, if only for consistency's sake, but that is not what's getting public attention or what is getting the financial support necessary to generate public attention.  This is true, imo, across the board. 

Hey, "canaries in the coalmine" perform a vital function in any society (to employ a dangerous "statist" concept).  When they are exploited to inflame public fears and distract from larger issues, however, I see them as a problem.  Justification of that via the high-minded rhetoric of liberty doesn't change the on-the-ground reality.  

Just as neoliberal globalization yielded severe problems that somehow surpised many of its cheerleaders when the consequences came back to bite them in the ass, the same is going to be true for healthcare. 

It makes no difference if your insurer is controlled by the government or by simple "free market" economics.  An insurance pool is an insurance pool and costs are going up.  Unless the young and healthy in your private insurance pool are either paying more or are far more numerous than the sick and elderly, your treatment is gonna be cut back when it gets too damn expensive . . . or the company is going BK.  Of course then the goobermint will be expected to clean up the mess. 

But, hey, maybe the Liberty community is gonna turn its guns from the little guys to the anti-freemarketeers who make most of the money from our current predicament as a "society" . . . which will eventually, probably sooner than later, affect even that most sovereign individual  in the blessed liberty of his private health care plan.

But I think we both know there's no money to support that from the people upon whom the Liberty Movement depends.  Nor any sustained attention from the angry local organizers who spearhead so much action and just can't seem to get their sights off the little guys and "freeloaders."  And, oh yeah, "Death Panels."

 

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

It makes no difference if your insurer is controlled by the government or by simple "free market" economics. 

 

If it makes no difference then why bother with government regulation?

 

or the company is going BK.  Of course then the goobermint will be expected to clean up the mess.

 

Not in a libertarian system.

 

But, hey, maybe the Liberty community is gonna turn its guns from the little guys to the anti-freemarketeers who make most of the money from our current predicament as a "society"

 

The liberty movement is already doing that. That's what I find attractive about it.

 

And, oh yeah, "Death Panels."

 

But Robert Reich said "let the old people die," the Berkley crowd cheered and you agreed that he was right. Isn't it a bit disingenuous to say that you support letting the older demographic die but anyone who calls that a "death panel" is a nut? How can you pretend that  government 'death panels" won't exist when you say you're in favor of them coming into existence?

 

Justification of that via the high-minded rhetoric of liberty doesn't change the on-the-ground reality. 

 

The human need for liberty is absolute just as the human need for proper nutrition and protection from the elements is absolute. Do you consider eating your dinner or coming in out of the rain to be some kind of "high minded" activity unrelated to basic human needs? No man owns me. I doesn't matter whether you find that to be convenient for your personal agenda or not.

nmewn's picture

Great story!"

Coming to a city near you...lol.

"OTOH, there's the exploitation of families that is daily practiced by the "health" industry for "extraordinary care" in the entirely private sector context which largely explains the, what, 8% annual rise in medical care expenses projected to consume, what, 70% of GDP in the next ten years . . . without ObamaTax."

What exploitation? You mean like driving up the cost of insurance because doctors are afraid if they don't do a test they run the risk of being sued? My health insurance has gone from a steady rise of 5-10% increase per year to 20-30% jumps and less coverage since the ObamaTax passed.

Yes, I fixed it. Its no longer ObamaCare...everyone now knows its a massive tax increase across the board.

"Suppose the profit-driven health industry comes out with a golden drug that extends every life by 6 months for the low, low price of $100k per month.  You think private health care insurers will pay that?"

As long as we're engaging in hypotheticals, do you think someone who can afford it should be taxed higher just because they have a so-called Cadillac Plan? Oh wait, its not hypothetical at all, the ObamaTax does just that. So on top of paying through the nose for high end care for six months, Obama comes along and taxes at a higher rate, not because of your income, but because of your friggin health insurance plan?...but we were talking about profit and revenue motives weren't we?

"It's gonna come down to money, regardless of how it's dressed or who delivers the news.  I worked five years in the health insurance industry, so I'm far from clueless."

If I recall, you are a psychiatrist...so I'll pass, heh.

"Funny that the "liberty" community is so passionate about fighting evil PUBLIC labor unions..."

You left out an important detail in your diagnosis there doc...I fixed that as well ;-)

blunderdog's picture

       I'm just glad that now the health care industry can't take everything I own to pay an inflated beyond all reason bill.

Wherever did you get this idea?

Haole's picture

I have a dream...

 

...every time I read ZH, etc. these days.

JPM Hater001's picture

They lost me when Darby vs US came down in 1938.  The cheif justice called the 10th Amendment was a "truism" and didnt add anything to the constitution that wasnt already said elsewhere.

 

I wasnt born but that was the nail, meet coffin, moment.

nah's picture

does this descision by SCOTUS mean we dont have to vote anymore

cossack55's picture

Close. It reaffirms that you have not needed to vote for the past 50 years.

El Oregonian's picture

Oh, you can still vote but the candidates/puppets are attached to the same string.

Yes_Questions's picture

 

 

Yeah, but my puppet can beat up your puppet!

Seasmoke's picture

why any man , thinks its ok for another man to decide how they live, is beyond me

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

It's for the children, you hater!

Temporalist's picture

I love that line.  And what if the children are feral self-absorbed greedy psychopaths that want to kill their elders to give themselves more stuff? (rhetorical I recognize the sarc)

FleaMarketPete's picture

Good thing children can't vote.  Unfortunately the feral self-absorbed greedy psychopaths baby boomers can.  You better learn a value skill grey hairs or there will be more than just pink slime in my hamburgers!

RockyRacoon's picture

Hey, Pete, just because you have no skills doesn't mean that nobody else does.  It's likely that I've already forgotten more than you'll ever know.  I'm working on my 4th career.  You?  Blaming others for your misfortune can only mean that you'll end up like one of those you are criticizing.  Skills?  Ha!  Either you have it or you don't.  Learning "stuff" is just the tasty nougat filling of a fulfilling life.

nmewn's picture

Kids.

Whatcha gonna do with them? They got it all figgered out, just like we did at their age.

At eighteen they know it all and think their parents are stupid. At twenty five they realize they don't really know it all. At thirty they realize their parents were right all along. At forty they try to be just like them. At fifty they want to be eighteen again. At sixty they're lucky if they're not back in diapers...lol.

I'll be fifty three this year...I want another motorcycle like when I was eighteen ;-)

Uncle Remus's picture

[W]hat if the children are feral self-absorbed greedy psychopaths that want to kill their elders to give themselves more stuff?

Coming to a dystopia near you.

WTFx10's picture

Because the men who do the deciding ALWAYS live better than the ones who don't? Why is that? Once you have that power (rothchilds) you do everything in your power to make sure it never changes.

billwilson's picture

Rasmussen = Bullshit These guys are right less often than a broken clock. I have no idea why anyone even reports their findings.

cossack55's picture

Isn't Rasmussen a branch of Moody's?

JR's picture

This is just the beginning… This has been a bad week for Obama’s re-election -  Arizona first and now this. By election time, even the Democrat numbers will begin to go more negative.

“Barack Obama has done more for the banks and the people who control them than any sitting president in the history of the United States.  So, basically, Barack Obama was used to engineer the bailouts -  depending on how you what to count them, 12 trillion to 27 trillion -  and the banks have been richly rewarded for doing what they were asked to do which is the fraudulent inducement of America. Barack Obama is here to help the banks, not here to control or stop them. Now the question for the American population is, now that that’s how it’s turned out, what do they do?” – Catherine Austin Fitts -  Euro Zone, The Centralization Battle Rages On  in an On the Edge interview with Max Kaiser June 30, 2012 (Fitts – solari.com - spent $6 million and 11 years of her own time and money trying to stop the housing bubble…)

http://maxkeiser.com/2012/06/30/on-edge-catherine-austin-fitts/

Pumpkin's picture

The poeple most certainly did not defeat the most powerful military on earth only to creat a government that they would have to serve.  How could anyone argue agaist this?

mjk0259's picture

There was almost as many Americans on the British side. French beat them.

Heroic Couplet's picture

Hm, I think Jesse parined Robert Reich's prediction and description of why Obama Won. The Supreme Court doesn't have any money powers (Congress) or military power (Executive Branch).  Their approval rating before Obama Won was 40%, given the ire over Citizens United and Bush v. Gore.

I think GOP and teabaggers, the Republican leaders should whip themselves into a frenzy over Obama Won. I told one wing nut. "Paint Rush Limbaugh's face on your ass and see if anyone can tell the difference." The more the wing nuts whip themselves into a frenzy, the more Obama Won.