Approval ratings shouldn’t be the measure of the Supreme Court’s success. But with the way the judicial branch is talked about, many people wouldn’t know that.
A new survey by Rasmussen Reports and the Heartland Institute found a high percentage of Democrats and young people support making radical changes to the Supreme Court, including abolishing it to elect judges.
While 72% of Republicans and 52% of voters overall have a favorable view of the Supreme Court, only 33% of Democrats can say the same. At 61%, more than half believe it is “a fundamentally racist institution.” A full 67% agree it is a “fundamentally sexist institution” —despite the fact that four sitting justices are women.
Most Democrats support various proposals to restructure the court. Court packing, a proposal made by leftists on multiple occasions, was supported by the majority of Democrats, with 64% agreeing the court should be expanded to 13 seats. Another 53% agreed with a proposal to abolish the current court entirely so justices can be directly elected by the people. Out of those who “strongly approve” of President Joe Biden’s performance, 62% want to abolish the court.
The situation is direr among younger people. An astounding 48% of voters under 40, along with 39% of Democrats and 17% of Republicans, would support a constitutional amendment granting the United Nations the power to reverse Supreme Court decisions it deems human rights violations. The subtext here is Roe v. Wade, which U.N. human rights experts already condemned as stripping rights away “with the stroke of a pen and without sound legal reasoning.”
Of all the awful proposals poll respondents considered, this may be the worst. It’s difficult to fathom how so many can overlook the far-reaching consequences of allowing foreign entities to exact control over the U.S. judiciary, especially when the U.N. allows known abusers, such as China, to sit on its Human Rights Council.
Heartland Institute Senior Editor Chris Talgo said the numbers reflect a movement among leftists to “reimagine” the court to make it “nothing more than a rubber stamp for their radical agenda.”
“Fortunately, most likely voters reject this notion and steadfastly support the Supreme Court,” he noted in a statement.
But those who do desire to “reimagine” the Supreme Court betray an ignorance of how our government functions. Appointing judges rather than electing them protects the court’s independence, ensuring it is not subject to the tumultuous change that characterizes the other branches. The courts, Alexander Hamilton writes in “Federalist No. 78,” are there to “guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors” that tend to spread among the people and “occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community.”
As ignorant as some voters are on the most basic civics questions, they are just as certain their activism is right. The public square is flooded with activists who know little about the causes they champion but are applauded nonetheless for their woke crusades.
Close to three-fourths of people supported a 15-week abortion ban in a recent Harvard/Harris poll. Yet multiple national polls found the majority of people disapprove of the decision to overturn the Roe pro-abortion decision that would have made it impossible for states to implement a 15-week ban. The discrepancy reveals people do not understand the consequences of Roe even though they have strong opinions.
Civics education obviously is woefully lacking.
Roe aside, it’s vital to maintain the independence of the court, regardless of personal political leanings. As Hamilton wrote, “no man can be sure that he may not be to-morrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer to-day.”
