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.”

Entertainment

Molly-Mae Hague: New documentary will ‘answer a lot of questions’ about Tommy Fury split

Published

2 hours ago

January 16, 2025

admin

Molly-Mae Hague: New documentary will 'answer a lot of questions' about Tommy Fury split

Molly-Mae Hague has said her new fly-on-the-wall documentary will “answer a lot of questions” surrounding her recent break-up with Tommy Fury.

The couple, who met during the 2019 series of ITV2 reality show Love Island, announced they were going separate ways in August last year.

The split sparked rumours that Fury, 25, had cheated on Hague, also 25, which he later denied.

Speaking at the launch of the first three episodes of a new Amazon Prime documentary Molly-Mae: Behind It All, the influencer said she is “very honest” about the breakdown of her relationship with the boxer, which she said has been “incredibly hard”.

“It is real life,” Hague said. “Tommy and I have a baby together, and it’s a really hard thing that we have both gone through.”

The couple have faced scrutiny that the break-up may have been a publicity stunt, as it coincided with the launch of Hague’s clothing line, Maebe and Fury’s book, Lightning Can Strike Twice: My Life as a Fury.

They were then pictured celebrating New Year’s Eve together, leading to fans speculating if they had got back together.

When questioned on it, Hague said accusations their break-up was planned is the most “frustrating thing”.

“I wish it could have been a publicity stunt because it would have been a lot easier,” she said.

“Going through all of this with the turmoil of a break-up has been incredibly hard, to have those comments, and I do see the comments, I see all of them.”

She added: “Our relationship has always been in the public eye but to deal with this break-up with millions of eyes watching it is hard and it is complicated.

“The reason why I don’t comment on it or speak about it on my YouTube publicly is simply because we are both navigating it ourselves, we both are figuring it out as adults and parents.

“I really do think the documentary is going to answer a lot of questions and we do touch on [the New Year’s] situation. The last thing I want is any confusion, and I don’t want people to feel confused by things that are going on.

“When I agreed to do this documentary I agreed to do it fully, the highs, lows, good days and bad days it has all got to be in there.”

It comes as Fury told Men’s Health that the reason behind their break-up was because he had a “problem with alcohol”.

“I couldn’t be the partner that I wanted to be anymore,” he told the magazine, adding: “Cheating was never a thing. You can ask Molly this yourself. It was the drink, and the drink is not a good thing.”

‘I did struggle with motherhood’

The new documentary also gives viewers behind-the-scenes access to Hague figuring out how to juggle being a mother to one-year-old Bambi, who she shares with Fury, and launching a new business.

“It’s not a secret that I did struggle at the start of my motherhood journey,” Hague said.

“It’s been an ongoing struggle for me, but right now I am in such an incredible place with being a mum and motherhood is all I could have dreamed of.

“I really want to work on my fashion brand this year and focus on being a mum. I want to leave a lot of the things that happened last year in last year and focus on the positives.”

She added that ahead of the documentary coming out, she feels like she needs to get her “thick skin into play”.

“These three episodes are what they are, and I hope [the public] enjoy them. The reason we did the series in two drops was because a lot of the things we touch on in the first three episodes are very current and ongoing, and it is real life and I really wanted to share the honesty with my audience and explain things to them.

“It just felt like the right thing to do.”

Molly-Mae: Behind It All episodes 1-3 launch exclusively on Prime Video on 17 January. The latter three episodes will drop in spring 2025.

Politics

Sir Keir Starmer to sign 100-year ‘friendship’ deal with Ukraine in first Kyiv visit since becoming PM

Published

2 hours ago

January 16, 2025

admin

Sir Keir Starmer to sign 100-year 'friendship' deal with Ukraine in first Kyiv visit since becoming PM

Keir Starmer will sign a century-long partnership with Ukraine today, as the prime minister makes his first visit to the war-torn country in an effort to shore up support for Kyiv – just days ahead of the arrival of Donald Trump in the White House.

Sir Keir said the 100-year agreement underpinned Britain’s “steadfast support” for Ukraine as he reiterated European unity in the face of Russia n aggression. The treaty and political declaration will be laid in parliament in the coming weeks.

“Putin’s ambition to wrench Ukraine away for its closest partners has been a monumental strategic failure. Instead, we are closer than ever and this partnership will take that friendship to the next level,” said the prime minister.

“The power of our long-term friendships cannot be underestimated. Supporting Ukraine to defend itself from Russia’s barbaric invasion and rebuild a prosperous, sovereign future, is vital to the government’s security and Plan for Change.”

War latest: Moscow ‘planned terror attacks’ on airlines across world

The PM’s visit is part of a wider effort on the part of European leaders to shore up support for Kyiv as they ramp up discussions over regional security ahead of the handover of power in Washington. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland on Wednesday.

The flurry of diplomatic activity comes as the conflict between Ukraine and Russia has intensified ahead of the inauguration of president-elect Trump, with Vladimir Putin trying to take as much territory as possible ahead of expected peace talks.

On Wednesday, Ukraine’s state energy company was forced into emergency cuts after a massive Russian military attack.

Russia controls around a fifth of Ukraine after nearly three years of war and says any deal to end the conflict must take that into account.

In September 2022, it proclaimed four regions that it only partly controls as part of its own territory, which was condemned by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) as an “attempted illegal annexation”.

While President Joe Biden was steadfast in the US’s continuing support of Ukraine’s military effort, Trump has made it clear he wants to end the conflict quickly, hastening discussions about what a settlement might look like between Kyiv and Moscow.

In November, President Zelenskyy said for the first time in an interview with Sky News that Ukraine was prepared to temporarily cede territory to Russia to end the war if the conflict was frozen along current lines.

He added after a ceasefire was agreed, Kyiv could negotiate for the return of seized territory.

Sir Keir has also changed his tone, from insisting allies must “double down” on support for Ukraine for “as long as it takes” at the November G20 summit, to saying British policy was now “to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position for negotiations”.

The prime minister will want to reiterate to President Zelenskyy that nothing is off the table, as the duo discuss the ongoing conflict, the impending Trump presidency and what a settlement could look like.

As part of the partnership deal, the UK will bolster military collaboration on maritime security through a new framework to strengthen the Baltic, Black and Azov seas.

President Zelenskyy has reportedly told journalists the two leaders will discuss the possibility of British troops joining a post-war peacekeeping force, as other European leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron – who visited the PM at his Chequers country residence last week – and Tusk have similar conversations.

Ukraine relies on US support to continue the conflict, given it provides the bulk of military aid. But Trump has made it clear he is reluctant to keep funding the war, saying during the election campaign he would end it “within 24 hours” of taking office.

He has subsequently acknowledged that ending the conflict will be more difficult, but his administration is keen to press ahead: Trump has said he will arrange a call with Putin soon after his inauguration on 20 January, while the new US envoy to Ukraine, retired lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, said last week he wanted a solution to the war in the first 100 days of office.

The discussion around peacekeeping forces is part of a wider conversation among European allies about what security guarantees should be put in place for Ukraine, including buffer zones and the threat of more weapons for Ukraine in the absence of NATO membership.

President Zelenskyy has said any guarantees must be backed up by the US as the prospect of a NATO membership invitation fades from view.

Ukraine becoming a member of NATO is a clear red line for Moscow, with Putin describing Kyiv joining the security alliance as “an unacceptable threat”.

Last week, Trump acknowledged Moscow’s longstanding opposition to Ukraine’s ambition to join NATO, given it would mean “Russia has somebody right on their doorstep, and I can understand their feeling about that”.

European leaders are concerned Trump will force Ukraine into an unjust peace deal, and they will be shut out of the negotiations which will shape the security of the continent for many years.

NATO chief Mark Rutte last month cautioned Trump over his plans for a peace deal, warning it would lead to the West’s enemies “high fiving” and would only serve to embolden China, North Korea and Iran.

The PM has come under criticism from Conservative rivals for not visiting Ukraine sooner, with former defence secretary Grant Shapps saying he was “astonished” is has taken the PM six months in power to visit the country.

However, Sir Keir has met the Ukrainian leader six times, as well as hosting him twice at Number 10 since taking office in July.

World

Biden warns of an ‘oligarchy’ of wealth and power threatening US democracy

Published

2 hours ago

January 16, 2025

admin

Biden warns of an 'oligarchy' of wealth and power threatening US democracy

President Joe Biden has warned of a “dangerous concentration of power” among a few wealthy people in the United States in his farewell address to the nation.

Without naming president-elect Donald Trump, Mr Biden said: “Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that really threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedom and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead.”

During his speech from the Oval Office in the White House, the president said there was “a dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a few ultra-wealthy people” and warned of “dangerous consequences if their abuse of power is left unchecked”.

Although he did not give names, some of the world’s richest individuals and tech titans have flocked to Mr Trump’s side, particularly since his election win in November.

Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, spent more than $100m helping Mr Trump get elected, and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos have also donated to Mr Trump’s inauguration.

While Mr Biden was giving his speech, Mr Trump, Mr Musk and vice president-elect JD Vance dined with Microsoft’s CEO Satya Nadella at Mar-a-Lago, according to news outlet Semafor.

During his address Mr Biden also warned of a “tech-industrial complex” he said was bringing an “avalanche of misinformation and disinformation, enabling the abuse of power”, following social media company Meta scrapping its fact-checking programme in the US and loosening its hate speech guidelines.

The president said the US Constitution should be amended to say no president should have immunity for crimes committed in office, after the Supreme Court granted Mr Trump protection last year from criminal liability over his role in trying to undermine his loss to Mr Biden in 2020.

Analysis: Trump doing his best to undermine Biden as outgoing president tries to polish his legacy

Biden takes credit for Israel-Hamas ceasefire deal

Mr Biden also took credit for the ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas that will see the release of Israeli hostages for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners.

“This plan was developed and negotiated by my team, and it will be largely implemented by the incoming administration,” he said.

“That’s why I told my team to keep the incoming administration fully informed, because that’s how it should be – working together as Americans.”

He made the remarks after Mr Trump claimed credit for the breakthrough in negotiations

During his farewell speech Mr Biden said: “It will take time to feel the impact of all we’ve done together, but the seeds are planted and they’ll grow and they’ll bloom for decades to come.”

Mr Biden beat Mr Trump to become president in 2020, but decided to run for re-election in 2024 at the unprecedented age of 80.

He was later forced out of the race following a disastrous debate with Mr Trump and his replacement, Vice President Kamala Harris, went on to lose every battleground state to Mr Trump.