The American public no longer believes the Supreme Court is impartial

Published

2 years ago

January 11, 2023

admin

Never in recent history, perhaps, have so many Americans viewed the Supreme Court as fundamentally partisan.

Public approval of the nine-justice panel stands near historic lows. Declining faith in the institution seems rooted in a growing concern that the high court is deciding cases on politics, rather than law. In one recent poll, a majority of Americans opined that Supreme Court justices let partisan views influence major rulings.

Three quarters of Republicans approve of the high court’s recent job performance. But Democrats’ support has plummeted to 13 percent, and more than half the nation overall disapproves of how the court is doing its job.

Public support for the high court sank swiftly last summer in response to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a landmark ruling that revoked a constitutional right to abortion. The decision delighted many conservatives but defied a large majority of Americans who believe abortion should be legal.

Anti-abortion advocates celebrate outside the Supreme Court in Washington on June 24, 2022, following the court’s decision to end constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)

Yet, partisan anger runs deeper than Dobbs. Liberals are fuming about a confluence of lucky timing and political maneuvering that enabled a Republican-controlled Senate to approve three conservative justices in four years, knocking the panel out of synch with the American public.

Judged by last year’s opinions, the current court is the most conservative in nearly a century, at a time when a majority of Americans are voting Democratic in most elections. Democrats say the court no longer mirrors society, a disconnect that spans politics and religion. All six of the court’s conservatives were raised Catholic, a faith that claims roughly one-fifth of the U.S. population.

Republicans counter that the high court’s job is to serve the Constitution, not to please the public.

“The Left was used to, for the most part, getting its way with the court,” said John Malcolm, a senior legal fellow at conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation. “Now that the Left is not getting its way with the court, they’re trying to tear it down and delegitimize it.”

Legal scholars may not care much about the high court’s popularity, but they care deeply about its legitimacy.

And what is legitimacy? James L. Gibson, a political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, defines it as “loyalty to the institution. It is willingness to support the institution even when it’s doing things with which you disagree.”

Americans remained steadfastly loyal to the high court for decades, Gibson said, embracing it even after the powder-keg Bush v. Gore decision of 2000, which decided an election. Members of Congress near bottom of ethics ratings: Gallup

But then, with Dobbs, the high court suffered “the largest decline in legitimacy that’s ever been registered, through dozens and dozens of surveys using the same indicators,” Gibson said. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”

One Gallup poll, taken after someone leaked a draft of the Dobbs ruling, found that only 25 percent of the American public had confidence in the court, the lowest figure recorded in a half century of polling.

Around the same time, journalists revealed that Ginni Thomas, wife of high court Justice Clarence Thomas, had pressed state lawmakers to help overturn former President Trump’s 2020 defeat at the polls.

“The idea that you have the spouse of a Supreme Court justice advocating for overthrowing the government — sui generis, I think,” said Caroline Fredrickson, a visiting law professor at Georgetown University, invoking the Latin term for “unique.”

With the high court’s legitimacy eroding, Gibson said, the panel faces “greater institutional vulnerability to congressional manipulation.”

An unsympathetic legislature could add seats to the court, “packing” it to dilute the influence of the conservative majority. Congress could impose term limits on justices who now serve for life. Lawmakers could narrow the court’s jurisdiction, limiting its authority to hear contentious cases.

“Practically nothing about the court is free from congressional manipulation,” Gibson said. “And, man, John Roberts is aware of this.”

President Donald Trump, left, walks with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Monday, July 22, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

The chief justice has emerged as a voice of moderation on the right-leaning panel. One Gallup poll, taken in December 2021, found that 60 percent of Americans approved of how Roberts was handling his job. Roberts outpolled other A-list leaders, including the president, vice president and leaders of the House and Senate.

“He’s the justice who twice saved Obamacare,” Malcolm said. Roberts joined the court’s liberals in rejecting legal challenges to health care reform by a popular president.

“He’s the justice who said, ‘I would not have overturned Roe v. Wade,’” Malcolm said. While he joined his conservative colleagues in the majority on Dobbs, Roberts wrote in a concurring opinion that he would have preferred not to reverse the 1973 abortion decision, but instead to rule more narrowly on the case at hand.

Roberts, chief justice since 2005, has defended the court’s legitimacy in public remarks since Dobbs. Legal scholars say he is keenly aware that his court is drifting away from the mainstream of public opinion.

“I think Chief Justice Roberts cares a lot about the optics,” Fredrickson said.

In its first term with a six-person conservative bloc, the high court overturned Roe, posited a Second Amendment right to carry guns in public and restricted the government’s role in combating climate change, among other rulings.

According to a scholarly database, the Dobbs court delivered its most conservative term since 1931.

In previous decades, by contrast, “the U.S. Supreme Court has rarely been out of step with the preferences of its constituents, the people,” Gibson said. “Throughout history, the court has ratified the views of the majority, not opposed them.”

If the current court has a historical precedent, it is the Warren court of the 1950s and 1960s. The panel led by Chief Justice Earl Warren inspired mass protests with decisions that expanded civil rights and outlawed segregation in public schools.

“You ended up having ‘Impeach Earl Warren’ signs throughout the Southeast during this time,” Malcolm said.

But even the Warren court didn’t cleave the nation by political party.

“While the divisions over the Warren court may have been just as deep or deeper, they didn’t break down deeply along party lines,” said Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University. “There used to be liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats.”

Over the decades, the transfer of presidential power between parties has guaranteed a steady stream of liberal and conservative appointees to maintain political balance on the court. Former Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama each appointed two Supreme Court justices in a two-term, eight-year presidency.

And then came President Trump, who collaborated with a Republican Senate to deliver three justices in a single term.

Trump’s first appointment, Neil Gorsuch, plugged a vacancy Obama had attempted to fill with Merrick Garland, now the attorney general. The Republican Senate majority blocked Garland, stalling until the 2016 election in hope that a Republican candidate would prevail. Democrats howled.

Trump’s second pick, Brett Kavanaugh, followed a more orderly process but seeded even more controversy when a congressional witness, Christine Blasey Ford, accused the nominee of sexual assault.

Trump’s third appointment, Amy Coney Barrett, arrived on the eve of the 2020 election. This time, the Republican majority chose not to await the results. Again, Democrats howled.

Members of the Supreme Court sit for a new group portrait following the addition of Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, at the Supreme Court building in Washington, Friday, Oct. 7, 2022. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Barrett replaced Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon who had clung to her seat through two bouts of cancer before dying in office at 87. Liberal strategists had urged her to resign during the Obama presidency. Some progressives fault her still for not stepping down.

In the months to come, President Biden and congressional Democrats could restore the court’s ideological balance by packing it with liberals, or hobble it by narrowing its jurisdiction. But they probably won’t, legal observers say, because the Republicans could one day weaponize the same tools against the Democrats.

Far more possible, in the long term, is a bipartisan consensus to impose term limits on the court. With medical advances extending human life, high-court justices now routinely serve for 30 years. Lifetime appointment “gives them a bizarrely monarchical sort of power,” Fredrickson said.

A 2021 bill proposed 18-year terms, with the president allowed to nominate a new justice every other year.

Two-thirds of the public support term limits. But Republicans have little incentive to back legislation that, from their perspective, solves a nonexistent problem.

“There’s a good chance that, sooner or later, we will get term limits for the Supreme Court,” Somin said. “But later is more likely than sooner.”

Business

What are Donald Trump’s tariffs, what is ‘liberation day’ and how does it all affect the UK?

Published

1 hour ago

April 2, 2025

admin

What are Donald Trump's tariffs, what is 'liberation day' and how does it all affect the UK?

If there is a word that has dominated Donald Trump’s second term, it’s tariffs.

Aluminium, steel, cars and champagne have all been in his firing line, while China, Canada and Mexico are the countries targeted with the heaviest costs.

Along the way, there have been threats, pauses and postponements.

So what are tariffs, what is in the pipeline – and what could all this mean for the UK?

What are tariffs and why is Trump threatening to use them?

Tariffs are taxes on goods imported into the US.

It is the importers buying the goods who pay the tariffs – therefore, American companies.

Ultimately, the intent is to protect US manufacturing and bolster jobs by making foreign-made products less attractive.

However, there is a knock-on effect: to compensate for tariffs, companies put up their prices, so customers end up paying more for goods.

Tariffs can also damage foreign countries as they make their products pricier and harder to sell.

In his second term, Mr Trump has frequently used them – or the threat of them – as a trade weapon.

They are a key part of Mr Trump’s efforts to reshape global trade relations, and he plans to impose a swathe of what he calls “reciprocal” taxes that would match tariffs levied by other nations.

Tariffs were also part of his playbook in his first term, when he imposed taxes on most goods coming from China and used them as a bargaining chip to force Canada and Mexico to renegotiate a North American trade pact.

On his first day back in office, the US president promised 25% tariffs on all products coming into the US from its nearest neighbours Mexico and Canada – ostensibly to force the countries to tackle illegal migration and fentanyl crossing the border.

What is liberation day?

Mr Trump has branded 2 April “liberation day”, when he could unveil the reciprocal tariffs on countries deemed to be giving the US a bad deal on trade.

The extent of potential tariffs and countries affected remains unclear, with Mr Trump at times sending mixed messages.

On 30 March, he said “all countries” could expect to be hit by tariffs.

Speaking from Air Force One, the US president rubbished a question from a reporter who asked whether it was true he was planning on targeting between 10 and 15 countries.

“Who told you 10-15 countries? You didn’t hear it from me,” he said.

When pressed on how many he was planning to hit, he said: “You’d start with all countries, let’s see what happens.”

Two days prior, he said he was open to carving out deals with countries seeking to avoid US tariffs, but that those agreements would be negotiated after 2 April.

He had previously said he “may give a lot of countries breaks, but it’s reciprocal”, adding: “We might be even nicer than that.”

How could the UK be affected?

The UK hopes an economic deal with the US will spare the country from some of the tariffs.

Sir Keir Starmer and Mr Trump have had “productive negotiations” towards a UK-US “economic prosperity deal”, Downing Street has said.

The two leaders discussed a possible deal in a phone call on Sunday and agreed negotiations will “continue at pace”, according to a statement released on Sunday 30 March.

The day before the so-called “liberation day”, Sir Keir told Sky News political editor Beth Rigby the UK was “working hard on an economic deal” with the US and said “rapid progress” has been made.

But, he admitted: “Look, the likelihood is there will be tariffs. Nobody welcomes that, nobody wants a trade war.

“But I have to act in the national interest and that means all options have to remain on the table.”

Sir Keir added: “We are discussing economic deals. We’re well advanced.

“These would normally take months or years, and in a matter of weeks, we’ve got well advanced in those discussions, so I think that a calm approach, a collected approach, not a knee-jerk approach, is what’s needed in the best interests of our country.”

Mr Trump has not explicitly said the UK is in his sights for further tariffs, though he has described VAT – a tax added on all goods and services in the UK – as unfair.

In deciding what is a reciprocal tariff for the UK, it’s possible Mr Trump could use the tax, typically 20%, to decide.

Data shows no great trade imbalances – the gap between what you import and export from a certain country – and UK figures show no trade deficit with the United States.

UK ministers have previously suggested this could be good news for avoiding new levies.

But the tariffs Mr Trump has already announced would have a big impact on the UK – particularly the car tariff.

Jonathan Reynolds, the business and trade secretary, told Sky News he is “hopeful” the tariffs can be reversed soon.

He warned: “The longer we don’t have a potential resolution, the more we will have to consider our own position in relation to [tariffs], precluding retaliatory tariffs.”

He added the government was taking a “calm-headed” approach in the hope a deal can be agreed, but said it is only “reasonable” that retaliatory tariffs are an option, echoing Sir Keir’s sentiments over the weekend.

What tariffs have already been announced?

Some tariffs have already come into effect, while Mr Trump has confirmed some that will come in on 2 April.

He has said a 25% tariff on all cars imported to the US will come into effect, with a similar tariff on car parts expected to follow in May.

This could prove even more complicated for American car makers, who source components from around the world even if the vehicle is made in the US.

But Mr Trump has insisted the move will “continue to spur growth”, pointing to plans from Hyundai – the South Korean car maker – to build a $5.8bn (£4.5bn) steel plant in Louisiana.

The tariff could have a huge impact on the UK’s car industry, including on manufacturers such as Jaguar Land Rover, Aston Martin and Rolls-Royce.

Official data shows the US is the UK car sector’s largest single market by country, accounting for £6.4bn worth of car exports in 2023 – 18.4% of the total.

Trump has also said he will place a 25% tariff on all imports from any country that buys oil or gas from Venezuela, which includes the US itself – in addition to imposing new tariffs on the South American country.

On 12 March, a 25% tariff on all steel and aluminium imports to the US came into effect, affecting UK products worth hundreds of millions of pounds.

The move came after he placed a 10% tax on all imports from China, which he later doubled to 20%.

He placed 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada, but paused them for a month two days after they came into effect, meaning they are set to resume on 2 April.

The pause did not fully cover a tariff of 10% on Canadian energy products.

What has been the global response to tariffs?

There has widely been condemnation of the tariffs, especially from countries worst affected like Mexico and Canada.

Some have imposed, or threatened to impose, retaliatory tariffs.

China has already hit back with retaliatory tariffs covering a range of US goods, including a 15% tariff on coal and liquefied natural gas products, a 10% tariff on US crude oil and tariffs of up to 15% on key US farm exports.

Canada imposed tariffs of its own on US products, including a 25% reciprocal tariff on US steel and aluminium products and tariffs worth an estimated C$29.8bn (£16bn) on a wide range of US products including orange juice, peanut butter, alcohol, coffee and clothing.

The European Union has said it will impose retaliatory tariffs on the US, but when they will come into force is unknown.

The European Commission initially threatened to impose “countermeasures” affecting €26bn (£21.9bn) of US goods from 1 April, but later delayed this until the middle of April.

The bloc said the delay was because it wanted “additional time for discussions” with the US after Mr Trump threatened a 200% tariff on EU alcohol – including wine and champagne – if the bloc imposed duties on US whiskey.

Any tariffs imposed by the bloc would not only impact US steel and aluminium products, but also textiles, home appliances, agricultural goods and whiskey.

Why tariffs could cost you – even if Trump spares UK

Even if no tariffs are put on all UK exports to the US, consumers globally will still be impacted by the wider trade war, particularly in the US.

Economists believe that tariffs will raise costs in the US, sparking a wave of inflation that will keep interest rates higher for longer. The US central bank, the Federal Reserve, is mandated to act to bring inflation down.

More expensive borrowing and costlier goods and services could bring about an economic downturn in the US and have knock-on effects in the UK.

Forecasts from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) predict lower UK economic growth due to higher global interest rates.

It estimated that UK GDP (a measure of everything produced in the economy) could be between 2.5% and 3% lower over five years and 0.7% lower this year.

The Centre for Inclusive Trade Policy thinktank said a 20% across-the-board tariff, impacting the UK, could lead to a £22bn reduction in the UK’s US exports, with the hardest-hit sectors including fishing and mining.

Business

‘Liberation day is here’: But what will it mean for global trade?

Published

1 hour ago

April 2, 2025

admin

'Liberation day is here': But what will it mean for global trade?

“Liberation day” was due to be on 1 April. But Donald Trump decided to shift it by a day because he didn’t want anyone to think it was an April fool.

It is no joke for him and it is no joke for governments globally as they brace for his tariff announcements.

It is stunning how little we know about the plans to be announced in the Rose Garden of the White House later today.

It was telling that we didn’t see the President at all on Tuesday. He and all his advisers were huddled in the West Wing, away from the cameras, finalising the tariff plans.

Follow the events of Liberation Day live as they unfold

Three key figures are central to it all.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is the so-called ‘measured voice’. A former hedge fund manager, he has argued for targeted not blanket tariffs.

Peter Navarro is Trump’s senior counsellor for trade and manufacturing. A long-time aide and confidante of the president, he is a true loyalist and a firm believer in the merits of tariffs.

His economic views are well beyond mainstream economic thought – precisely why he appeals to Trump.

‘Stop that crap’: Trump adviser Peter Navarro reacts to Sky News correspondent’s question over tariffs

The third key character is Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary and the biggest proponent of the full-throttle liberation day tariff juggernaut.

The businessman, philanthropist, Trump fundraiser and billionaire (net worth ranging between $1bn and $2bn) has been among the closest to Trump over the past 73 days of this presidency – frequently in and out of the West Wing.

If anything goes wrong, observers here in Washington suspect Trump will make Lutnick the fall guy.

What are Donald Trump’s tariffs, what is ‘liberation day’ and how does it all affect the UK?

And what if it does all go wrong? What if Trump is actually the April fool?

“It’s going to work…” his press secretary said when asked if it could all be a disaster, driving up the cost of living for Americans and creating global economic chaos.

“The president has a brilliant team who have been studying these issues for decades and we are focussed on restoring the global age of America…” Karoline Leavitt said.

Dancing to the president’s tune

My sense is that we should see “liberation day” not as the moment it’s all over in terms of negotiations for countries globally as they try to carve out deals with the White House. Rather it should be seen as the start.

Trump, as always, wants to be seen as the one calling the shots, taking control, seizing the limelight. He wants the world to dance to his tune. Today is his moment.

But beyond today, alongside the inevitable tit-for-tat retaliation, expect to see efforts by nations to seek carve-outs and to throw bones to Trump; to identify areas where trade policies can be tweaked to placate the president.

Even small offerings which change little in a material sense could give Trump the chance to spin and present himself as the winning deal maker he craves to be.

One significant challenge for foreign governments and their diplomats in Washington has been engaging the president himself with proposals he might like.

Negotiations take place with a White House team who are themselves unsure where the president will ultimately land. It’s resulted in unsatisfactory speculative negotiations.

Too much faith placed in the ‘special relationship’?

The UK believes it’s in a better position than most other countries globally. It sits outside the EU giving it autonomy in its trade policy, its deficit with the US is small, and Trump loves Britain.

It’s true too that the UK government has managed to accelerate trade conversations with the White House on a tariff-free trade partnership. Trump’s threats have forced conversations that would normally sit in the long grass for months.

Yet, for now, the conversations have yielded nothing firm. That’s a worry for sure. Did Keir Starmer have too much faith in the ‘special relationship’?

Downing Street will have identified areas where they can tweak trade policy to placate Trump. Cars maybe? Currently US cars into the UK carry a 10% tariff. Digital services perhaps?

US food? Unlikely – there are non-tariff barriers on US food because the consensus seems to be that chlorinated chicken and the like isn’t something UK consumers want.

Easier access to UK financial services maybe? More visas for Americans?

For now though, everyone is waiting to see what Trump does before they either retaliate or relent and lower their own market barriers.

Business

Planning reforms to ‘rewire the system’ and get Britain building – all while protecting wildlife

Published

1 hour ago

April 2, 2025

admin

Planning reforms to 'rewire the system' and get Britain building - all while protecting wildlife

Major developers will only deal with one regulator under planning reforms which ministers say will “rewire the system” to get Britain building – all while protecting the environment.

A review by former Labour adviser Dan Corry into Britain’s sluggish system of green regulation has concluded that existing environmental regulators should remain in place, while rejecting a “bonfire of regulations”.

But Mr Corry suggested there might be circumstances in which the government look at changing the wildlife and habitat rules inherited from the EU, which protect individual species.

Politics latest: Follow live updates

These lie at the centre of the controversy of a £120m bat tunnel – the shed in Aylesbury which protects a rare breed from future high speed trains.

Keir Starmer has declared war on £100m HS2 bat shed – but has he got a solution?
New planning bill could be the government’s most important – but will it work in practice?

The government has now explicitly ruled out any such change in this parliament.

Campaigners have questioned whether the changes go far enough and will make a major difference to the rate and scale of building in the UK.

Speaking to Sky News, Environment Secretary Steve Reed insisted that accepting nine of the recommendations from the Corry review would amount to wholesale reform.

The minister said: “We can get a win-win for economic growth and for nature. And that is why we are moving ahead with proposals such as appointing a lead regulator for major developments so that the developers don’t have to navigate the architecture of multiple regulators.

“They just work for a single regulator who manages all the others on their behalf. Simplifying the online planning portal.

“These are huge changes that will save developers billions of pounds and speed up decisions doing damage to the environment.”

Mr Reed insisted that there would be “no more bat tunnels” built, even though the Corry review suggests that more work needs to be done to look again at the relevant guidance.

It says: “Rapidly reviewing the existing catalogue of compliance guidance, including on protecting bats, will identify opportunities to remove duplication, ambiguity or inconsistency.

“Natural England has already agreed to review and update their advice to Local Planning Authorities on bats to ensure there is clear, proportionate and accessible advice available.”

The review will mean:

• Appointing one lead regulator for every major infrastructure project, like Heathrow expansion

• A review on how nature rules are implemented – but not the rules themselves

• Insisting regulators focus more on government priorities, particularly growth

Economist and former charity leader Mr Corry, who led the review, said it shows that “simply scrapping regulations isn’t the answer”.

“Instead we need modern, streamlined regulation that is easier for everyone to use. While short-term trade-offs may be needed, these reforms will ultimately deliver a win-win for both nature and economic growth in the longer run.”

However, Sam Richards from Britain Remade, a thinktank trying to get Britain growing, said that while the steps are welcome, the number of regulators that report to the environment department would remain the same before and after the review. He questioned whether this would have the impact ministers claimed.