public views of the supreme court · public views of the supreme court charles h. franklin...
TRANSCRIPT
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
PublicViewsoftheSupremeCourtCharlesH.Franklin
ProfessorofLawandPublicPolicyandDirectoroftheMarquetteLawSchoolPoll
October2019
PrefaceTheMarquetteLawSchoolPollconductedanationalsurveyofopinionconcerningtheU.S.SupremeCourtonSeptember3-13,2019.ThesurveyprovidesadetailedlookatpublicknowledgeabouttheCourtandthejustices,confidenceintheCourtandsupportfortheinstitution,opinionsaboutdecisions,andhowviewsoftheCourtareconnectedtopartisanandideologicalpredispositions.
Thisreportprovidesanoverviewofthesetopics,focusingonknowledge,perceptions,andtherolethatpoliticalpreferencesplayinstructuringopinion.
ThesurveywasconductedSeptember3-13,2019,interviewing1,423adultsnationwide,withamarginoferrorof+/-3.6percentagepoints.InterviewswereconductedbytheNationalOpinionResearchCenter(NORC)usingitsAmeriSpeakPanel,anationalprobabilitysamplewithinterviewsconductedonline.Thedetailedmethodologystatement,completesurveyinstrument,toplineresultsandcrosstabsareavailableathttps://law.marquette.edu/poll/category/results-and-data/.
IntroductionTheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesisapowerfulbranchofthefederalgovernment,theultimatearbiterofconstitutionalcasesandcontroversies.Ithasan
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
2
importantroleinboththeseparationofpowersamongthebranchesofthefederalgovernmentandinorderingrelationsbetweenthefederalgovernmentandthe50states.TheCourt’simportanceisevidentbothintheconstitutionalstructureandinthelivedAmericanexperience.
Atthesametime,theCourtisalsotheleast-well-knownbranch.WhiletheCourthasoftenbeencaughtupinintenselegalandpoliticalquestions,itisshieldedfromdirectelection,andlifetimetenurefurtherinsulatessittingjusticesfrompoliticalpressure.ThesubjectmatteroftheCourtisfarfromtheordinaryexperienceofcitizens.WhilewrittendecisionsoftheCourtprovidetheexplicitbasesofrulings(andofdissentingviews),fewamongthemasspubliceverreadthosedecisions,andnewsaccountscanatbestprovideasimplifiedsummary.ThisbarriertopublicunderstandingderivesfromtheCourt’ssubjectmatterandstructurebutalsoensuresthatcitizensrarelyareexposedtolegalargumentsandinsteadaremostlikelytojudgedecisionsbasedontheoutcomes,notthereasoningbehindthosedecisions.
ThepublicworkoftheCourtisalsoepisodicincomparisontothatoftheotherbranches.TheactionsofthepresidentandCongressarethesubjectofnumerousdailynewsstories,publicevents,andexpliciteffortstopersuadethepublic.Incontrast,theCourtacceptswrittenbriefsandhearsoralarguments,onlyafewofwhicharecoveredinthegeneralinterestnewsmedia;deliberatesprivately;andhandsdowndecisionsonahandfulofdaysayear,witharushneartheendoftheterminJune.ThesecharacteristicsfurtherseparatetheCourtfromthepubliceyeandattentionspan.
AndyettheCourtisseenasespeciallydependentonpublicsupportforitsauthority.With“noinfluenceovereithertheswordorthepurse,”Hamiltonargued,with“neitherFORCEnorWILL,”theCourt’spowerrestson“merelyjudgment.”PublicsupportfortheCourtasaninstitutionhasbeenfundamentaltoitsabilitytohavedecisionsseenaslegitimateeveninthefaceofdisagreementoveroutcomes.SeldomdoesarulingoftheCourt“settle”apoliticalmatter,asthelonghistoryofcivilrightscases,abortionrights,andredistrictingcases,tonameonlythree,demonstrates.Politicaldisputecontinues,butpublicacceptanceofthelegitimacyoftheCourtconstrainstheother,farmorepolitical,branchestoworkwithintheconfinesofCourtrulings.Withoutpublicsupport,theCourtmightfindcompliancewithitsdecisionsmoreelusive.
OurpurposehereistoexaminehowthepublicseestheSupremeCourt,itsjusticesanditsdecisions.Thisisaviewfromthepublicperspective.Thepublicisnotlearnedinthelaw,norisitespeciallywellinformedaboutthedetailsoftheCourt.NonethelessthepublicisurgedtoconsidertheCourtinpoliticaldebate,invotingdecisions,andultimatelyintheirviewoftheCourtasalegitimatearbiterofthelaw.Oursurveyattemptstounderstandtheboundariesofthepublic’sknowledge,
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
3
confidenceintheCourt,understandingofhowdecisionsarereached,andtherelationshipofthesethingswithpoliticalpreferencesthatstructurecitizens’understandingofgovernmentandpoliticsmoregenerally.
ThisreportconsiderssevenbroadtopicsconcerningpublicviewsoftheCourt:
*Knowledgeandawareness*Understandingofthebasisofdecisions*ConfidenceintheCourtandsupportforitsstructure*Viewsofnominationsandthedesirablequalitiesofjustices*PerceivedideologicalbalanceoftheSupremeCourt*Reactiontopastandpossiblefuturedecisions*Thepoliticalstructureofperceptionsandofpresidentialhandlingofnominations
TheprimaryorganizingthemesarethatpublicknowledgeandawarenessoftheCourtarelimitedandthatthisplaysakeymediatingroleinpublicperceptions.Ingeneral,thosemostknowledgeableandawarehavemorestronglystructuredviewsoftheCourt,andaregenerallymoreconfidentintheCourtthanthoselessinformed.
Thepublicplacesmoreemphasisonlaynotionsoffairnessinoutcomesratherthanlegaltheoriesabouthowdecisionsshouldbereached.However,asolidmajoritysaythattheCourtprimarilyfollowsthelawinreachingdecisionsratherthanpoliticalconsiderations.
ConfidenceintheCourtislargelystructuredbyhowmuchknowledgeandawarenesscitizenshave,withpoliticalpreferencesalsoinfluencingconfidence.Thereissubstantialsupportforrestructuringtheinstitution,butthissupportislessamongthosemostknowledgeableabouttheCourt.
Citizensareapttoemphasizequalitiesofgoodjudgmentandempathyoverjudicialphilosophywhendescribingwhatisdesirableinajustice.
CitizensviewtheCourtasideologicallycentrist,withfewbelievingthatitiseitherveryliberalorveryconservative.Rather,amajorityseeitasmoderateorconservativebutnotextremelyso.ThisviewofmoderationmayplayanimportantroleinconfidenceintheCourt,asfewseeitasextremelyfarfromtheirownideologicalpreferences.Viewsofspecificdecisionsvarywidely,withsubstantialmajoritiessupportingpastdecisionsinsomecaseswhilelargemajoritiesopposepastdecisionsinothercases.Viewsofcaseoutcomesaresometimesstronglystructuredbypartisanshipandideology,althoughtherearealsodecisionsthatshowonlythefaintesthintoftheseconsiderations.
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
4
Viewsofthejusticesarealsoinfluencedbypartisanandideologicalconsiderations.Despitethelimitedawarenessofindividualjustices,ingeneralcitizensformimpressionsofthejusticesthatareinlinewiththeindividualcitizen’spartisanandideologicalpreferences.
EvaluationsofpresidentialperformanceinSupremeCourtnominations,andofoverallpresidentialperformance,areinfluencedbyviewsofrecentnominees,evenafterconsideringpartisanandideologicalinfluences.ThisshowsthathowthepresidentapproachestheCourthasdiscernibleeffectsonhispoliticalsupport.
KNOWLEDGEANDAWARENESSThissectioncoverswhatpeopleknowabouttheCourtandtheConstitution.WefocusontheimportancepeopleattachtoappointmentstotheCourt,theexperiencepeoplehaveofhavingreadtheConstitution,andtheroleofgeneralattentiontopolitics.
Factualknowledgeismeasuredbyfouritemsassessingunderstandingofjudicialreview,theauthorityofCourtdecisionsoverthePresident,identificationoftheBillofRights,andknowledgeofwhichparty’spresidentshaveappointedamajorityoftheCourt.
AwarenessofthejusticesisanadditionalmeasureoffamiliaritywiththeCourt,showingconsiderablevariationacrossjustices.
IneachcasewealsoconsiderthecharacteristicsthataffectawarenessandknowledgeoftheCourt.
AttentiontotheCourtWhilemostpeoplethinkappointmentstotheCourtareimportant,oneinfivethinkitisnotsoimportant.
HowimportantisthechoiceofthenextSupremeCourtjusticetoyoupersonally?
Response PercentVeryimportant 47Somewhatimportant 31Nottooimportant 15Notatallimportant 7
Insubsequentanalysis,thetwocategoriesofleastimportanceofthenextappointmentarecombinedtoformathree-categoryimportanceofappointmentsscale.
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
5
ImportanceofnextCourtappointment,three-categoryscale
Response PercentNotimpt 22Somewhat 31Veryimportant 47
BasicfamiliaritywiththeConstitutioncancomefrommanysources,butsimplyhavingreadtheConstitutionisapersonalsourceofknowledgeforaboutfourintenrespondents.
HaveyoupersonallyeverreadtheentireConstitution,eitherinschooloronyourown?
Response PercentYes,havereadtheentireConstitution 43No,havenotreadtheentireConstitution 57
GeneralattentiontopoliticsisassociatedwithknowledgeoftheConstitutionandtheCourt.
Somepeopleseemtofollowwhat’sgoingoninpoliticsmostofthetime,whetherthere’sanelectiongoingonornot.Othersaren’tthatinterested.Howoftendoyoufollowwhat’sgoingoninpolitics?
Response PercentMostofthetime 43Someofthetime 35Onlynowandthen 15Hardlyatall 6
Insubsequentanalysis,thetwolowestlevelsofattentionarecombinedaslowattention,with“someofthetime”asamediumlevelofattentionand“mostofthetime”codedashighattention.
Somepeopleseemtofollowwhat’sgoingoninpoliticsmostofthetime,whetherthere’sanelectiongoingonornot.Othersaren’tthatinterested.Howoftendoyoufollowwhat’sgoingoninpolitics?
Response PercentLow 22Medium 35High 43
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
6
Attentionisrelatedtothinkingthenextappointmentisimportant.
ImportanceofCourtappointmentbyattentiontopolitics
Notimpt Somewhat VeryimportantLow 50 32 18Medium 22 41 37High 7 23 70
ThosewhopaymoreattentiontopoliticsingeneralarealsomorelikelytosaytheyhavereadtheConstitution.
ReadtheConstitutionbyattentiontopolitics
Notread ReadLow 68 32Medium 61 39High 49 51
FactualknowledgeWemeasureknowledgeoftheCourtandtheConstitutionthroughfouritems,assessingunderstandingofjudicialreview,theauthorityoftheCourtoverthepresident,thelocationoftheBillofRightswithintheConstitution,andwhichparty’spresidentshaveappointedamajorityofthecurrentCourt.Fromtheseitemsweconstructa“knowledge”measurewhichisusefulinunderstandingotherperceptionsoftheCourt.
DoestheSupremeCourthavethepowertoreviewlawspassedbyCongressandtodeclaretheminvalidiftheyconflictwiththeConstitution?
Response PercentYes,theSupremeCourthasthispower 86No,theSupremeCourtdoesnothavethispower 14
IftheSupremeCourtrulesagainstthepresidentinacase,doesthepresidenthavethepowertoignorethatruling,oristhepresidentrequiredtodoastherulingsays?
Response PercentThepresidenthasthepowertoignoretheruling 23Thepresidentisrequiredtodoastherulingsays 77
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
7
WhichpartoftheConstitutioniscalledthe‘BillofRights’?
Response PercentArticleI 9ArticleII 3ArticleIII 2Amendments1-10 52Amendments13-15 1Idon’tknow 33
WhatisyourguessastowhetheramajorityofthecurrentU.S.SupremeCourtjusticeswereappointedbyDemocraticorRepublicanpresidents?
Response PercentDefinitelyDemMajority 4ProbablyDemMajority 23ProbablyRepMajority 54DefinitelyRepMajority 19
Wecansumupthecorrectanswerstocreateaknowledgescoreforeachrespondent,rangingfromzerotofourcorrectanswers.Thatproducesthenexttable.
Knowledgeoffactualinformation,fullscale
Response Percent0 21 62 253 394 29
Forsubsequentuse,wecollapsethefullscoreintothreecategories,combiningscoresof0,1and2intothe“low”category.
Knowledgeoffactualinformation,three-categoryscale
Response PercentLow 32
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
8
Medium 39High 29
Correlatesofknowledge
ThesimplefactofhavingreadtheConstitutionmatters.ThosewhosaytheyhavereadtheConstitutionareabout10percentagepointsmorelikelytoscorehighonfactualknowledge,and11pointslesslikelytohavealowscore.
KnowledgescorebyhavingreadtheConstitution
Low Medium HighYes,havereadtheentireConstitution 26 39 35No,havenotreadtheentireConstitution 36 39 24
Generalattentiontopoliticsplaysasomewhatstrongerroleinfactualknowledge.
Knowledgescorebyattentiontopolitics
Lowknowledge Medium HighLowattention 53 32 15Medium 30 45 24High 23 38 39
Thosewithhigherlevelsofformaleducationarealsomoreknowledgeable.
Knowledgescorebyeducation
Low Medium HighHSorless 41 42 17SomeCollege/Assoc. 33 40 26BA 22 34 44Post-BA 17 38 45
ThoserespondentswhoreadanewspapermoreoftenarealsolikelytoknowmoreabouttheCourtandtheConstitution.
Knowledgescorebynewspaperreadership
Low Medium HighEveryday 24 38 37Afewtimesaweek 27 36 36Onceaweek 37 42 21
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
9
Lessthanonceaweek 38 43 19Never 40 39 21
Broadcastnewssourcesatfirstglanceappeartorelatetodifferencesinknowledge,butthesedifferenceslargelydisappearwhenotherfactorsaretakenintoaccount.
Knowledgescorebynewssource
Low Medium HighNetworknewssuchasonNBC,ABCorCBS 34 42 24FoxNewsChannel 34 44 21CNN 27 43 30MSNBC 23 42 35PBSNewsHour 11 43 46NationalPublicRadio(NPR) 18 26 56Someothernationalnewssource,pleasespecify: 36 29 35Donotwatch/listentonationalnewssource 45 30 24
Whilethesedifferencesinknowledgeappearfornewspaperreadershipandbroadcastsources,theeffectsarenotstatisticallysignificantonceotherfactors,includingattentiontopolitics,theimportanceofappointmentstotheCourt,andhavingreadtheConstitution,areincludedinamultivariatemodel.Thesourcedifferenceslikelyreflectdifferencesintheaudiencesforvariousnewssourcesratherthaneffectsduetothecontentofthosesources.
AwarenessofjusticesWeaskedrespondentsiftheyhadneverheardofeachjustice,hadheardofeachjusticebutdidn’thaveanopinion,andiftheywereawarewhethertheyhadafavorableorunfavorableopinion.Herewefocusonawarenessandturntoevaluationsinalatersection.
Thereisconsiderablevariationinawarenessofthejustices,fromaslowas16percentabletorateforJusticeBreyertoashighas59percentforJusticeGinsburgand58percentforJusticeKavanaugh.
SomejusticesoftheSupremeCourtarebetterknownthanothers.Foreachofthesenameshaveyouneverheardofthem,heardofthembutdon’tknowenoughtohaveanopinionofthem,haveafavorableopinion,orhaveanunfavorableopinion?
Notheard Heard,notenough HaveopinionBreyer 48 36 16
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
10
Kagan 47 31 22Alito 41 37 22Gorsuch 38 32 30Roberts 34 32 34Sotomayor 31 28 41Thomas 25 25 51Kavanaugh 17 25 58Ginsburg 21 20 59
Eachindividualjusticeisbetterknownamongthosewithhighattentiontopoliticsthanamongthosewilllessattention.ThesameholdsfortherelationshipbetweenknowledgeofeachjusticeandtheimportanceofappointmentstotheCourtandwhethertherespondentsaysheorshehasreadtheConstitution.Ratherthanlookatfamiliarityofeachjustice,wecreateascale,countingthenumberofjusticestherespondentknewwellenoughtoassignafavorableorunfavorablerating.
Numberofjusticesabletorate,fullscale
Response Percent0 281 112 93 94 95 86 87 68 49 8
Justoveroneinfourrespondentslackedenoughinformationtorateevenasinglejustice,withanadditional11percentabletorateonlyonejustice.Amongthoseratingonlyasinglejustice,49percentratedKavanaugh,26percentratedGinsburgand14percentratedThomas,withallotherjusticesratedbylessthan4percenteachamongtheseverylow-awarenessrespondents.
Collapsingtheawarenessscaleintothreeapproximatelyequalgroupsprovidesalowawarenessgroupforthoseabletoratenooronejustice,amiddlegroupforthoseratingtwotofourjustices,andahighawarenessgroupforthoseabletorateatleastamajorityofthejustices.
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
11
Awarenessofjustices,three-pointscale
Response PercentLow 39Medium 27High 35
AwarenessofcurrentjusticesishigheramongthosewhoassigngreaterimportancetoCourtappointmentsandamongthosewhosaytheyhavereadtheConstitution.
Awarenessofjusticesbyimportanceofappointments
Low Medium HighNotimpt 63 24 13Somewhat 46 35 19Veryimportant 22 24 55
AwarenessofjusticesbyreadConstitution
Low Medium HighNotread 42 31 27Read 33 22 45
GeneralattentiontopoliticsalsoisassociatedwithgreaterfamiliaritywiththeJustices.
Awarenessofjusticesbyattentiontopolitics
Low Medium HighLow 73 19 8Medium 44 33 23High 17 26 57
Higherlevelsofformaleducationarealsoassociatedwithgreaterfamiliaritywiththejustices.
Awarenessofjusticesbyeducation
Low Medium HighHSorless 55 24 21SomeCollege/Assoc. 37 30 33BA 27 25 49
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
12
Post-BA 12 32 57
Politicalinfluencesonawarenessofthejusticesaremodest.Independentsarelessawarethanarepartisans,butdifferencesbetweenRepublicansandDemocratsorbetweenindependentswholeantoeachpartyarenotstatisticallysignificant.
Awarenessofjusticesbypartyidentification
Low Medium HighRep 37 25 37LeanRep 38 27 35Ind 58 22 20LeanDem 34 25 41Dem 31 31 37
Awarenessofthejusticesriseswithstrengthofideology,withmoderatesleastaware.Thedifferencesbetweenveryconservativeandveryliberalorbetweenconservativeandliberalrespondentsarenotstatisticallysignificant.
Awarenessofjusticesbyideology
Low Medium HighVeryCon 30 21 49Conservative 31 29 40Moderate 49 24 27Liberal 27 33 40VeryLib 28 27 45
BASISOFDECISIONSThissectioncoverswhatthepublicbelievesisorshouldbethebasisofdecisionsoftheSupremeCourt.
HowthepublicthinksjusticesdecideandhowitthinkstheyshoulddecideWhilesomeseetheCourtasdrivenbypolitics,aneartwo-to-onemajoritysayjusticesbasetheirdecisionsprimarilyonthelaw.
Ingeneral,whatmostoftenmotivatesSupremeCourtjustices’decisions?
Response Percent
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
13
Mainlypolitics 36Mainlythelaw 64
AmajoritysaythatjusticesshouldbasetheirdecisionsonanevolvingmeaningoftheConstitutionratherthanonwhattheConstitutionwasoriginallyunderstoodtomean.
HowshouldSupremeCourtjusticesbasetheirdecisions?OntheirinterpretationsofwhattheU.S.ConstitutionwasunderstoodtomeanwhenitwasoriginallywrittenorontheConstitutionasadocumentwhosemeaningmayhaveevolvedovertime?
Response PercentOriginalmeaning 43Evolvingmeaning 57
Amajorityofthepublicbelievesthatdecisionsshouldproduce“fair”outcomesratherthanstrictlyfollowthelawifthatwouldproduceanunfairoutcome.
Whichismoreimportant,adecisionthatleadstoafairoutcomeoronethatfollowsthelaw,evenifseeminglyunfair?
Response PercentThatleadstoafairoutcome 56Thatfollowsthelaw,evenifseeminglyunfair 44
Inthinkingaboutthequalitiesimportantinajustice,thepublicputsgreateremphasisongoodjudgementandempathy,followedbyrespectforexistingdecisions,andleastimportanceisassignedtofollowingajudicialphilosophy.(Inthistable“notatallimportant”and“notveryimportant”arecombinedas“unimportant.”)
• “HowimportantisitforagoodSupremeCourtjusticetohaveeachofthesecharacteristics?”– “Beabletoempathizewithordinarypeople;thatis,tobeableto
understandhowthelawhurtsorhelpsthepeople”– “Exerciseofgoodjudgmentandwisdomintheapplicationofthelaw
ratherthanonlystricttechnicalcompliancewiththelawasitiswritten”– “RespectforexistingSupremeCourtdecisions”– “Interpretthelawaccordingtothejudge’sjudicialphilosophy,whether
liberalorconservative”
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
14
HowimportantisitforagoodSupremeCourtjusticetohaveeachofthesecharacteristics?
Unimportant Somewhat VeryEmpathy 10 21 69Goodjudgment 10 25 65Respectprecedent 12 44 44Judicialphilosophy 26 31 43
Politicsanddecisions
Partyandideologyareonlyweaklyrelatedtoviewsofthebasisofdecisions,withtheexceptionofviewsthatdecisionsshouldbebasedonoriginalmeaningoranevolvingmeaning.Onthisoriginalvs.evolvingmeaning,bothpartyandideologyhavesubstantialeffects,andthoseeffectsincreaseasknowledgerises.
Politicalideologyisrelatedtotheemphasisondecisionsbasedontheoriginalmeaningversusanevolvingmeaning.
Originalorevolvingmeaningbyideology
Originalmeaning EvolvingmeaningVeryCon 79 21Conservative 69 31Moderate 38 62Liberal 19 81VeryLib 22 78
Thestrengthoftherelationshipvarieswithknowledge.Forthoseinthelow-knowledgegroup,thecorrelationbetweenideologyandoriginalorevolvingmeaningis.24.Forthoseinthemediumknowledgecategoryitis.36,andforthoseinthehighknowledgecategorythecorrelationis.50.
Decisionbasedonoriginalorevolvingmeaningbyideologybylow,medium,orhighknowledge
IdeologyLow:
OriginalLow:
EvolvingMed:
OriginalMed:
EvolvingHigh:
OriginalHigh:
EvolvingVeryCon 71 29 91 9 81 19Conservative 63 37 75 25 70 30Moderate 37 63 42 58 32 68
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
15
Liberal 30 70 21 79 9 91VeryLib 55 45 34 66 5 95
Therelationshipwithpartyidentificationfollowsasimilarpattern.
Originalorevolvingmeaningbypartyidentification
Originalmeaning EvolvingmeaningRep 69 31LeanRep 61 39Independent 46 54LeanDem 19 81Dem 24 76
Aswithideology,thestrengthoftherelationshipwithpartisanshipriseswithknowledge.Thecorrelationforthelow-knowledgegroupis.25,forthemedium-knowledgegroupitis.40,andforthehigh-knowledgegroupthecorrelationis.49.
Decisionbasedonoriginalorevolvingmeaningbypartyidbyknowledge
PartyID
Low:Original
Low:Evolving
Med:Original
Med:Evolving
High:Original
High:Evolving
Rep 65 35 71 29 71 29LeanRep
46 54 69 31 61 39
Ind 45 55 56 44 35 65LeanDem
22 78 21 79 16 84
Dem 34 66 27 73 13 87
Partyandideologyhaveveryweakrelationshiptoviewsofwhetherthejusticesbasetheirdecisionsprimarilyonpoliticsorthelaw.Neitheroftheserelationshipsreachesstatisticalsignificance.Inahighlypolarizedenvironment,thislackofrelationshipmayserveasbuffertofurtherpoliticizationoftheCourt.
Decisionsbasedonpoliticsorlawbyideology
Mainlypolitics MainlythelawVeryCon 25 75Conservative 38 62Moderate 34 66Liberal 41 59
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
16
VeryLib 40 60
Decisionsbasedonpoliticsorlawbypartyidentification
Mainlypolitics MainlythelawRep 33 67LeanRep 37 63Ind 44 56LeanDem 33 67Dem 35 65
Originalorevolvingmeaning
Whilethedebatebetweenbasingdecisionsonoriginalmeaningoranevolvingmeaningloomslargeinlegalcircles,thechoicebetweentheseviewshaslimitedeffectsinthepublicperceptionofhowjusticesdecidewhethertheyshouldfollowprecedentorfollowajudicialphilosophy.Viewsoforiginalorevolvingmeaninghaveasignificantrelationshipwiththeimportanceassignedtoempathyandjudgment.
Viewsofdecisionsasbasedonpoliticsorthelawdonotdifferbetweenthosewhopreferdecisionsbasedonoriginalmeaningoranevolvingmeaning;therelationshipisastatisticallynon-significant.
Decisionsbasedonpoliticsorlawbyoriginalorevolvingmeaning
Mainlypolitics MainlythelawOriginalmeaning 38 62Evolvingmeaning 34 66
Intheimportancetheyassigntofollowingprecedent,thosewhopreferjusticestofolloworiginalmeaningalsodonotdifferfromthosewhofavoranevolvingmeaning.
Respectprecedentbyoriginalorevolvingmeaning
Unimportant Somewhat VeryOriginalmeaning 12 43 46Evolvingmeaning 12 44 43
Thereisalsonostatisticallysignificantrelationshipbetweenoriginal-meaningviewsandtheimportanceattachedtofollowingajudicialphilosophy.
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
17
Followjudicialphilosophy,byoriginalorevolvingmeaning
Unimportant Somewhat VeryOriginalmeaning 28 31 41Evolvingmeaning 25 31 44
Statisticallysignificantdifferencesdoemergebetweenoriginalistandevolvingviewsandtherolethatempathyandgoodjudgmentshouldplayindecisions,withthosefavoringanevolvingviewoftheConstitutiongivinggreaterimportancetobothempathyandgoodjudgment.
Empathybyoriginalorevolvingmeaning
Unimportant Somewhat VeryOriginalmeaning 18 23 59Evolvingmeaning 4 19 77Goodjudgmentbyoriginalorevolvingmeaning
Unimportant Somewhat VeryOriginalmeaning 13 31 56Evolvingmeaning 7 20 72
CONFIDENCEANDLEGITIMACY
ConfidenceintheCourtandotherinstitutionsConfidenceintheSupremeCourtishigherthanthatforotherbranchesandsomeotherinstitutions,followedbyconfidenceintherespondent’sstatesupremecourt.Confidenceinthepresidencyshowssomepolarizationwithmorevery-lowandvery-highratings,whiletheCongressreceivesthelowestconfidencerating.
HereisalistofinstitutionsinAmericansociety.Howmuchconfidencedoyouhaveineachone?
None Verylittle Some Quitealot AgreatdealU.S.SupremeCourt 4 16 43 29 8StateSupremeCourt 5 17 46 27 5Presidency 25 22 25 15 13CriminalJusticeSystem 8 26 46 17 3Congress 13 38 40 8 2
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
18
Forsimplicityofpresentation,subsequentanalysisofconfidencecollapsesthismeasuretothreecategories,combining“none”with“verylittle”andcombining“quitealot”with“agreatdeal”.
Confidenceininstitutions,threecategories
Low Medium HighU.S.SupremeCourt 20 43 37StateSupremeCourt 22 46 32Presidency 47 25 28CriminalJusticeSystem 34 46 20Congress 51 40 10
Whenrespondentsareaskedtorankthethreebranchesofthefederalgovernment,theSupremeCourtinspiresthemostconfidencebyasubstantialmargin.Thisfinding,consistentwithmuchotherpublicopinionresearch,pointstothestrengthoftheCourtinthepublicmindvis-á-vistheotherbranchesofthefederalgovernment.
OfthethreebranchesofUSgovernment,whichonedoyoutrustthemost?
Response PercentTheU.S.SupremeCourt(thejudicialbranch) 57TheU.S.Congress(thelegislativebranch) 22ThePresidency(theexecutivebranch) 21
Whohasconfidence?
ThosewhoaremoreawareoftheU.S.SupremeCourtgenerallyexpressgreaterconfidenceinit.FamiliaritybreedssupportinthecaseoftheCourt.Generalattentiontopoliticsisassociatedwithgreaterconfidence.
ConfidenceinCourtbyattentiontopolitics
Low Medium HighLow 32 48 20Medium 17 46 37High 18 36 46
SpecificknowledgeoftheCourtandtheConstitutionalsoisassociatedwithgreaterconfidenceintheCourt.
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
19
ConfidenceinCourtbyknowledgescore
Low Medium HighLow 25 45 30Medium 18 43 39High 18 39 43
AwarenessofthejusticesisassociatedwithgreaterconfidenceintheCourt.
ConfidenceinCourtbyawarenessoftheJustices
Low Medium HighLow 25 49 26Medium 20 40 40High 16 37 47
ThosewhothinkthenextappointmenttotheCourtisimportantexpressmoreconfidenceintheCourt.
ConfidenceinCourtbyimportanceofappointment
Low Medium HighNotimpt 33 43 24Somewhat 17 50 33Veryimportant 17 37 45
HavingreadtheConstitutiondoesnothaveasignificantrelationshipwithconfidence.
ConfidenceinCourtbyhavingreadConstitution
Low Medium HighNotread 21 43 36Read 19 42 39
Politicalvariableshavesomerelationshipwithconfidence.Independentshavelowerconfidencethanpartisans,whileRepublicanshavehigherconfidencethandoDemocrats.
ConfidenceinCourtbypartyidentification
Low Medium HighRep 14 32 54LeanRep 15 42 43
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
20
Ind 31 46 23LeanDem 23 56 21Dem 21 44 34
HighconfidenceintheCourtisassociatedwithconservativeideology,andconfidencedeclinesfromthosewithveryconservativetoveryliberalbeliefs.
ConfidenceinCourtbyliberal-conservativeideology
Low Medium HighVeryCon 13 36 52Conservative 17 37 46Moderate 21 46 34Liberal 21 46 33VeryLib 36 34 31
IdeologicalrelationshipswithconfidenceinpartdependsonideologicalagreementwiththeperceivedideologyoftheCourt.AmongthosewhoperceivetheCourtaseitherveryconservativeorconservative,thereisasharprelationshipbetweentherespondent’sdegreeofconservatismandconfidenceintheCourt.
ConfidenceinCourtbyideologyamongthosewhoseetheCourtasconservative
Low Medium HighVeryCon 1 8 91Conservative 16 27 57Moderate 22 46 32Liberal 25 47 28VeryLib 44 29 27
ThereisnorelationshipbetweenconfidenceandideologyamongthosewhoseetheCourtaseithermoderateorliberal.
ConfidenceinCourtbyideologyamongthosewhoseetheCourtasmoderateorliberal
Low Medium HighVeryCon 18 50 32Conservative 17 41 42Moderate 20 46 35Liberal 16 45 39VeryLib 28 38 34
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
21
InstitutionalchangeInthepastonecommonmeasureof“legitimacy”wassupportforthecurrentstructureoftheSupremeCourt.WithrecentpoliticaldivisionsovertheCourt,wenowfindhigherlevelsofsupportforchangestotheexistingstructure.Thissuggeststhatsupportforinstitutionalstructuresmaybemorestronglyinfluencedbypoliticaldisagreementsasopposedtohavingrootsinabroadersenseoflegitimacy.
Amajorityopposeincreasingthenumberofjustices,althoughoveroneinthreesomewhatfavoranincreaseand8percentstronglyfavorachange.
[IncreasethenumberofjusticesontheU.S.SupremeCourt]HowmuchdoyoufavororopposethefollowingproposalsaffectingtheSupremeCourt?
Response PercentStronglyfavor 8Favor 35Oppose 40Stronglyoppose 17
Thereismajoritysupportforsettingafixedtermforjusticestoserveonthecourt,replacingthecurrentlifetenure.
[HavejudgesserveafixedtermontheCourtratherthanservinglifeterms]HowmuchdoyoufavororopposethefollowingproposalsaffectingtheSupremeCourt?
Response PercentStronglyfavor 34Favor 38Oppose 20Stronglyoppose 8
Restrictingthepowerofjudicialreviewhassubstantialthoughnotmajoritysupport.Earlierwefoundwidespreadknowledgeofthepowerofjudicialreview,sothissupportdoesnotrestonlackofawareness.Thiswouldbeaprofoundchange.
[LimittheabilityoftheSupremeCourttoreviewandsetasideactsofCongressasunconstitutional]HowmuchdoyoufavororopposethefollowingproposalsaffectingtheSupremeCourt?
Response PercentStronglyfavor 8Favor 30
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
22
Oppose 43Stronglyoppose 19
Correlatesofinstitutionalstability
ThosewithhigherknowledgeoftheCourtandtheConstitutionarelesssupportiveofeachoftheinstitutionalchanges.
FavorexpandingCourtbyknowledge
Stronglyfavor Favor Oppose StronglyopposeLow 10 42 37 11Medium 8 34 40 18High 6 27 43 24Favorfixedtermsforjusticesbyknowledge
Stronglyfavor Favor Oppose StronglyopposeLow 41 37 19 4Medium 31 41 20 8High 30 35 24 11Favorlimitingjudicialreviewbyknowledge
Stronglyfavor Favor Oppose StronglyopposeLow 11 41 36 12Medium 7 30 46 17High 6 18 46 30
Partisanshipplaysaroleinwillingnesstomakechangestothenumberofjustices,withDemocratsmoresupportive,althoughevenamongstrongDemocratssupportforexpansionisevenlydivided.
FavorexpandingCourtbypartyidentification
Stronglyfavor Favor Oppose StronglyopposeRep 3 28 42 27LeanRep 4 31 35 30Ind 14 40 33 14LeanDem 8 35 48 9Dem 10 40 40 10
Supportforfixedtermsisindependentofpartisanship,withsimilarsupportacrossallpartygroups.
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
23
Favorfixedtermsforjusticesbypartyidentification
Stronglyfavor Favor Oppose StronglyopposeRep 34 35 22 8LeanRep 34 35 20 11Ind 32 40 19 9LeanDem 33 38 24 5Dem 34 41 19 6
Therearemodestdifferencesbetweenpartisansinsupportforlimitingjudicialreview,withRepublicansalittlemoresupportivethanDemocrats,thoughthedifferencesaresmall.
Favorlimitingjudicialreviewbypartyidentification
Stronglyfavor Favor Oppose StronglyopposeRep 13 32 38 17LeanRep 6 21 49 24Ind 11 34 37 18LeanDem 5 23 51 21Dem 4 33 44 19
NOMINATIONSNearlyhalfofrespondentssaythatthenextappointmenttotheSupremeCourtisveryimportanttothem,withanother31percentsayingthatitissomewhatimportant.Fifteenpercentsayitisnottooimportantand7percentsaytheappointmentisnotatallimportant.
HowimportantisthechoiceofthenextSupremeCourtjusticetoyoupersonally??
Response PercentNotatall 7Nottoo 15Somewhat 31Very 47
Insubsequentanalysisthe“notatall”and“nottoo”importantcategoriesarecombinedas“notimportant.”
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
24
ThosewhoaremoreknowledgeableabouttheConstitutionandtheCourtaremorelikelytorateanappointmentasimportant.Thoseleastknowledgeableareevenlyspreadacrossthecategoriesofimportance,while60percentofthoseinthehigh-knowledgegroupratethenextappointmentasveryimportant,withonly10percentsayingitisnotimportant.
Importanceofnextappointmentbyknowledge
Notimpt Somewhat VeryimportantLow 32 34 33Medium 21 30 49High 10 30 60
Anevensharpergradientinimportanceisassociatedwithgeneralinterestinpolitics,withhalfoftheleastattentiveratingthenextappointmentnotimportantwhile70percentofthemostattentiveratingitveryimportant.
Importanceofnextappointmentbyattentiontopolitics
Notimpt Somewhat VeryimportantLow 50 32 18Medium 22 41 37High 7 23 70
Thosewhoaremorestronglyattachedtoapartyoranideologyarealsoconsiderablymorelikelytothinkappointmentsareimportant.
Importanceofnextappointmentbystrengthofpartyidentification
Notimpt Somewhat VeryimportantInd 43 28 29Lean 16 39 44Partisan 17 29 53Importanceofnextappointmentbystrengthofideology
Notimpt Somewhat VeryimportantModerate 29 36 35LiborCon 16 29 55VeryLib/Con 11 23 66
Whilestrengthofpartyidentificationorideologyhasasubstantialeffectonimportance,thedifferencesbetweenDemocratsandRepublicansandbetweenliberalsandconservativesarerelativelymodest.Republican-leaningindependents
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
25
assignlessimportancethanDemocratic-leaningindependents,butpurepartisanshardlydiffer.
Importanceofnextappointmentbypartyidentification
Notimpt Somewhat VeryimportantRep 18 29 53LeanRep 19 42 39Ind 43 28 29LeanDem 13 37 50Dem 17 30 54
Thosewhoconsiderthemselvesveryliberalassignmoreimportancetothenextappointmentthanthosewhoareveryconservative,andsimilarlyforthosewhoareliberalcomparedtothosewhoareconservative.Moderatesgivesubstantiallylessimportancetothenextappointment.
Importanceofnextappointmentbyideology
Notimpt Somewhat VeryimportantVeryCon 12 28 60Conservative 18 30 51Moderate 29 36 35Liberal 13 27 60VeryLib 9 18 73
FaithtraditionplaysonlyamodestroleintheimportanceassignedtoCourtappointments.Born-againorevangelicalChristians,RomanCatholics,andthoseofotherfaithsrateappointmentsasabitmoreimportantthandomainlineProtestantsorthenonreligious.
Importanceofnextappointmentbyreligion
Notimpt Somewhat VeryimportantBorn-again 17 30 52Mainline 28 32 41Catholic 15 34 50Other 15 28 57Nonreligious 27 30 43
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
26
Thefrequencyofreligiousworshipisalsoonlyweaklyrelatedtotheimportanceofappointments,althoughthosewhoattendworshipweeklygiveasomewhathigherimportancethanthosewhoattendlessregularly.
Importanceofnextappointmentbyfrequencyofattendanceatreligiousservices
Notimpt Somewhat VeryimportantNever 26 29 45Seldom 27 28 44FewPerYear 21 36 43Monthly 18 45 37Weekly 14 28 58
OppositiontonomineesTheconfirmationofnomineestoboththeSupremeCourtandlowerfederalcourtshasgrownfarmorecontentiousoverthepastseveraldecades.Duringthisperiod,oppositionbasedonexpectedpolicydifferencesandbasedonpartisanship,whichoncewasrare,hasbecomecommon.
Whilepartisanandpolicydifferenceshavecometodominateelitedebateovernominations,substantialmajoritiesofthepublicsaythatthesearenotsufficientreasonstorejectanotherwisequalifiednominee.
Fewerthan40percentsaythatasenatorwouldbejustifiedinrejectinganotherwise-qualifiednominee,withnoethicalproblems,basedonhowthesenatorbelievesthenomineewoulddecidecases.Morethan60percentsaythisisnotajustificationforrejectinganominee.
IfanomineefortheU.S.SupremeCourtisqualifiedandhasnoethicalproblems,wouldU.S.senatorsbejustifiedornotjustifiedinvotingagainstthatnomineesimplybecauseofhowtheybelievethejusticewoulddecidecasesonissuessuchasabortion,guncontrol,oraffirmativeaction?
Response PercentJustified 38Notjustified 62
Partisanobjectionstoanomineeareseenasevenlessjustified,withmorethan80percentsayingthatrejectingaqualifiednomineesimplybecauseofpartyisnotjustified,with19percentsayingthatthisisreasonenoughforavoteagainstconfirmation.
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
27
IfanomineefortheUSSupremeCourtisqualifiedandhasnoethicalproblems,wouldUSSenatorsbejustifiedornotjustifiedinvotingagainstthatnomineesimplybecausetheSenatorisfromadifferentpoliticalparty?
Response PercentJustified 19Notjustified 81
Rejectionduetopartisan(i.e.,party)differencesisequallydisapprovedacrosspartyidentification,ideology,andstrengthofpartyidentificationorideology.Whilepartyandpolicyareinextricablylinked,thepublicdoesnotsupportpartisandifferencesasthesolebasisofconfirmingorrejectingCourtnominees.
Rejectingnomineesbasedonhowtheyarebelievedlikelytoruleoncasesissomewhatmoredependentontherespondent’spartyandideology.WhileDemocraticandRepublicandifferencesarenotstatisticallysignificant,independentsaresignificantlymorelikelytosayrejectionbasedonpolicydifferencesisnotjustified.
Rejectnomineeoverpolicybypartyidentification
Justified NotjustifiedRep 37 63LeanRep 34 66Ind 26 74LeanDem 43 57Dem 44 56
Thosewhosaythatthenextappointmentisimportantaremorelikelytosaythatrejectinganomineeonpolicygroundsisjustified.Thisdoesnotcarryovertorejectiononpartisangrounds,however,wheretherearenosignificantdifferences.Evenamongthosewhoratethenextappointmentasveryimportant,lessthanhalfsaythisisjustifiedonpolicygrounds,andonlyoneinfivesaysoonpartygrounds.
Rejectnomineeoverpolicybyimportanceofnextappointment
Justified NotjustifiedNotimpt 29 71Somewhat 38 62Veryimportant 42 58Rejectnomineeoverpartybyimportanceofnextappointment
Justified Notjustified
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
28
Notimpt 15 85Somewhat 20 80Veryimportant 21 79
Thosewhoaremostattentivetopoliticsarealsomorewillingtojustifyrejectionofanomineeonpolicygrounds,butnotwillingtodosooverpartisandifferences.Aswiththeimportanceassignedtothenextnominees,morethanhalfofthosewhopaythemostattentiontopoliticssaythatrejectingaqualifiednomineeonpolicygroundsisnotjustified,andover80percentsaysoofpartisangrounds.
Rejectnomineeoverpolicybyattentiontopolitics
Justified NotjustifiedLow 29 71Medium 38 62High 42 58Rejectnomineeoverpartybyattentiontopolitics
Justified NotjustifiedLow 20 80Medium 22 78High 17 83
ConfirmationsduringanelectionyearThedecisionbySenatemajorityleaderMcConnellin2016nottoholdhearingsonanynomineebyPresidentObamatoreplacethelateJusticeAntoninScaliawascontroversial.Forthemasspublicthisactionwas,inretrospectatleast,nottherightthingtodo.
InFebruary2016,followingthedeathofJusticeAntoninScalia,RepublicanSenateMajorityLeaderMitchMcConnellannouncedthattheSenatewouldnotconsiderorholdhearingsonanynomineePresidentObamamightnameduringanelectionyear.InMarch,ObamanominatedJudgeMerrickGarlandtotheSupremeCourt.TheSenatedidnotholdahearingandthenominationexpiredinJanuary2017.Wasnotholdingahearingonthenominationtherightthingorthewrongthingtodo?
Response PercentRightthingtodo 27Wrongthingtodo 73
Thepossibilityofanominationduringthe2020electionyearfacesthequestionofconsistencywiththe2016precedent.Mostrespondentsbelievethatanominationin
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
29
2020shouldresultinhearings.However,nearlyoneinthreenowbelievethathearingsshouldnotbeheldinanelectionyear.
IfthereisavacancyontheSupremeCourtduringthe2020presidentialelectionyearandPresidentTrumpnominatessomeonewhatshouldtheSenatedo?
Response PercentHoldhearings 69Notholdhearings 31
Viewsofthelackofhearingsin2016arestronglyrelatedtopartisanship,withRepublicansmorelikelytosaytherefusaltoconsideranominationwastherightthingtodo,althoughevenamongRepublicansaslightmajoritysaythatitwasthewrongdecision,asdonearlynineintenDemocrats.
Noconfirmationhearingsin2016bypartyidentification
Rightthingtodo WrongthingtodoRep 45 55LeanRep 34 66Ind 30 70LeanDem 13 87Dem 13 87
Asforholdinghearingsifa2020vacancyweretooccur,Republicansstronglysupporthearingsinapresidentialelectionyear,whilenearlyfourintenDemocratssaynohearingsshouldoccur.
Holdconfirmationhearingsin2020bypartyidentification
Holdhearings NotholdhearingsRep 72 28LeanRep 81 19Ind 76 24LeanDem 62 38Dem 63 37
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
30
PERCEIVEDIDEOLOGICALBALANCEOFTHESUPREMECOURTAsimpleideologicalperceptionoftheCourtmayvastlyoversimplifythecomplexityofjudicialdecisionsandofthemakeupoftheCourt.Toordinarycitizens,lackinglegaltrainingorinclination,asimpleideologicalperspectivemaynonethelessservetosimplifythiscomplexity.Coupledwithincreasedpartisanshipinnominations,thisoversimplificationmaystillserve.
DespitepartisanbattlesovertheCourtinrecentdecades,abaremajorityconsidertheCourttooccupya“moderate”positionontheliberal-conservativedimension.Considerablymore,39percent,considertheCourtconservativethanthe12percentwhoconsideritliberal.
Itisworthnotingthatfewrespondentsseethecourtasextremeineitherideologicaldirection,withonly9percentcombinedsayingthatitiseitherveryconservativeorveryliberal.
Ingeneral,wouldyoudescribetheUSSupremeCourtasveryconservative,conservative,moderate,liberalorveryliberal?
Response PercentVeryconservative 6Conservative 33Moderate 50Liberal 9Veryliberal 3
Theseperceptionsaresomewhatrelatedtoknowledgeorattentiontopolitics.WhilethereislittledifferenceinperceptionoftheCourtamongthoselowormediuminknowledge,amongthehigh-knowledgegroupamajority,54percent,calltheCourtconservativeorveryconservative.AmajorityofbothgroupsoflessknowledgeablerespondentssaytheCourtismoderate.
Evenamongthemostknowledgeable,theviewholdsthattheCourtisnotextremeinideology,withonly7percentsayingitisveryconservativeand2percentcallingitveryliberal.
PerceivedideologyoftheCourtbyknowledge
Veryconservative Conservative Moderate Liberal VeryliberalLow 4 23 56 14 3Medium 6 30 54 7 3
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
31
High 7 47 39 5 2
Asimilarpatternholdsforgeneralattentiontopolitics.ThosemostattentivesplitevenlybetweencallingtheCourtconservativeormoderate,with41percentineachcategory.Forthelessattentive,majoritiesplacethecourtatthemiddleoftheideologicalscale.
PerceivedideologyoftheCourtbyattentiontopolitics
Veryconservative Conservative Moderate Liberal VeryliberalLow 3 24 62 7 5Medium 5 29 55 10 1High 7 41 41 8 3
Partisansfrequentlyprojecttheirviewsonpoliticalinstitutions.InthecaseoftheCourt,amajorityofDemocratsandindependentswholeanDemocraticseethecourtasconservativeorveryconservative.IndependentsandRepublicansaremuchmorelikelytocalltheCourtmoderate,withabout60percentofeachgroupplacingtheCourtatthemiddleonideology.NoneofthepartisancategoriesseesanespeciallyextremeCourt,oncemoreshowingtheCourtisseenasbeingtothemiddle,withthepublicviewtiltingabitmoreonewayortheotherdependingonknowledge,attention,orpartisanship.
PerceivedideologyoftheCourtbypartyidentification
Veryconservative Conservative Moderate Liberal VeryliberalRep 4 23 58 11 3LeanRep 2 27 61 9 2Ind 2 23 64 6 5LeanDem 10 50 35 5 0Dem 8 42 38 9 2
PerceptionoftheCourt’sideologyissomewhataffectedbyone’sownideologicalpreferences.VeryconservativeandconservativerespondentsareabitmorelikelytodescribetheCourtasliberalwhileabouthalfofliberalandveryliberalrespondentsseetheCourtasconservativeorveryconservative.
PerceivedideologyoftheCourtbyself-placementonideology
Veryconservative Conservative Moderate Liberal VeryliberalVeryCon 6 27 43 21 3Conservative 2 26 54 15 3Moderate 6 31 55 6 1
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
32
Liberal 8 45 40 3 3VeryLib 9 40 34 7 11
SomeofthisdifferenceinperceptionisrelatedtosystematicmisperceptionofthemakeupoftheCourt’smajority.Thirty-fivepercentofconservativeorveryconservativerespondentsbelieveamajorityoftheCourtwasappointedbyDemocraticpresidents,comparedto27percentamongmoderate,liberal,orveryliberalrespondents.
BeliefsaboutthemakeupoftheCourtintermsofpartyoftheappointingpresidentstructureperceptionoftheCourt’sideologicaltilt.
Thepublicistentativeinclaimingtoknowwhichparty’spresidentshaveappointedamajorityofthejustices.Only19percentaredefiniteintheirbeliefthatamajorityoftheCourthasbeenappointedbyRepublicanpresidents,while4percentaredefinite,andincorrect,thatamajoritywerenominatedbyaDemocraticpresident.Ofthetentativemiddle,54percentsaythemajoritywereprobablyRepublicanappointees,whilenearlyaquarter,23percent,thinkaDemocratprobablyappointedthemajority.
WhatisyourguessastowhetheramajorityofthecurrentUSSupremeCourtJusticeswereappointedbyDemocraticorRepublicanpresidents?
Response PercentDefinitelyDemMajority 4ProbablyDemMajority 23ProbablyRepMajority 54DefinitelyRepMajority 19
Ofthosewhoaremostclearandcorrectaboutthemajority,overhalfperceiveaconservativeCourt,with10percentmoresayingitisveryconservative.ForthosemoretentativeastoaRepublicanmajorityorthoseincorrectinperceivingaDemocraticmajority,atleastamajoritydescribetheCourtasmoderate.
PerceivedideologyoftheCourtbyappointing-partymajority
Very
conservative Conservative Moderate LiberalVery
liberalDefinitelyDemMajority
3 6 53 32 5
ProbablyDemMajority
4 14 62 14 6
ProbablyRep 5 37 51 6 1
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
33
MajorityDefinitelyRepMajority
10 53 30 4 3
TheconsequencesofideologicalperceptionsforconfidenceintheCourtareasfollows.TheveryfewrespondentswhoperceivetheCourttobeideologicallyextreme(atotalof8percent)expressexceptionallylowlevelsofconfidenceintheinstitution.AmongthoseperceivingaconservativeormoderateCourt,confidenceisequalandrelativelyhigh,whilethoseseeingaliberalCourthavesomewhatlessconfidence.
ConfidenceinCourtbyperceivedideologyofCourt
Low Medium HighVeryconservative 50 28 22Conservative 18 41 41Moderate 15 44 41Liberal 29 53 18Veryliberal 65 21 13
DECISIONS
PreferencesonpastandpotentialdecisionsWeaskedaboutatotalof14cases.Wedescribedsevenpastdecisionsandsevenpossiblefuturedecisions.Inthelattergroup,webasedsomedescriptionsonactualcases,whileotherswerehypothetical,andwedidnotindicatewhethersuchadescriptionwasbasedonanactualasopposedtohypotheticalcase.Ourchoiceoftopicsreflectsrecentandcurrentcasesthathavereceivedwidespreadnewscoverage.Inallcases,weadoptedcommonjournalisticlanguagetodescribetheoutcomeorconsequencesofdecisions,ratherthanattemptingafullersyllabusforeachcase.WiththeexceptionofRoev.Wade,wedidnotidentifycasesbyname.
Opinionofpastcases
Pastdecisionsdescriberulingsonsame-sexmarriage,useofraceincollegeadmissions,abanontraveltotheUnitedStatesfromMuslim-majoritycountries,coverageofbirthcontrolinemployeehealthplans,campaignspendingby
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
34
corporationsandunions,partisangerrymandering,andanindividual’srighttopossessafirearm.
Publicviewsoftheseactualorpossibledecisionsvary.Insomecases,amajoritysupportpastdecisionswhileinothersthemajoritydonotagree.Infuturecases,therearesomepossibleoutcomesthatreceivemorepopularsupportthanothers.
Thefullquestionwordingandtheshortdescriptionusedinthetablesbelowfollow.
• Pastdecisions:“HowmuchdoyoufavororopposethefollowingrecentSupremeCourtdecisions?”– Corporatepoliticalspending“Decidedthatcorporationsandunions
canspendunlimitedamountsofmoneytodirectlysupportoropposepoliticalcandidates.”
– Raceinadmissions“Decidedcollegescanuseraceasonefactorindecidingwhichapplicantstoadmit.”
– PartisanGerrymanders“Decidedthatfederalcourtslacktheconstitutionalauthoritytoruleoncasesinvolvinglegislativeandcongressionaldistrictboundariesdesignedtofavoronepoliticalparty(knownasgerrymanders).”
– Excludebirthcontrolcoverage“Decidedthatprivately-heldfor-profitcompaniesmaychoosenottopayforcoverageofprescriptionbirthcontrolintheirworkers’healthplansifthecompany’sownerhasreligiousobjections.”
– Upheldtravelban“UpheldPresidentDonaldTrump’stravelbanagainstcitizensoffiveMuslim-majoritycountries.”
– Same-sexmarriage“Establishedaconstitutionalrightforsame-sexcouplestomarry.”
– Righttofirearm“TheSecondAmendmentreads:‘AwellregulatedMilitia,beingnecessarytothesecurityofafreeState,therightofthepeopletokeepandbearArms,shallnotbeinfringed.’In2008theCourtruledthattheSecondAmendmentprotectsanindividualrighttopossessafirearmunconnectedwithserviceinamilitia,andtousethatarmfortraditionallylawfulpurposes,suchasself-defensewithinthehome."
Publicviewsofpastdecisions.
Str
Oppose Oppose FavorStr
FavorDon’tknow
Corporatepoliticalspending 53 22 11 3 10Raceinadmissions 57 21 11 4 7PartisanGerrymanders 26 19 15 11 29
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
35
Excludebirthcontrolcoverage
44 19 13 14 10
Upheldtravelban 33 16 19 23 10Same-sexmarriage 23 13 20 36 9Righttofirearm 11 13 27 40 8
Possiblefuturedecisions
SomeofthefuturedecisionsaretakenfromcasescurrentlyontheCourt’sdocketwhileothersarehypothetical.Thesequestionsaskedhowmuchtherespondentwouldfavororopposetheoutcomeasdescribed.PossibledecisionsincludedoverturningRoev.Wade;strikingdowntheAffordableCareAct;allowingreligiousbusinessownerstodenyservicestogaypeople;allowingtheTrumpadministrationtoendtheDACAprogram;extendingprotectionsagainstemploymentdiscriminationtocovergay,lesbianandtransgenderindividuals;allowingpublicfundsthatsupportstudentsattendingprivateschoolstoalsoincludethoseattendingreligiousschools;anddecidingthatabanonsemi-automaticriflesviolatestheSecondAmendment.Thefullquestionwordingandtheshortdescriptionusedinthetablesbelow(andinthesubsequentsectionheadings)follows.
• Possiblefuturedecisions:“HowmuchdoyoufavororopposethefollowingpossibleSupremeCourtdecisions?”– OverturnRoev.Wade“OverturnRoeversusWade,thusstrikedown
the1973decisionthatmadeabortionlegalinall50states.”– EndDACA“DecidetheadministrationcanendtheDACAprogramthat
allowsyoungpeoplewhowerebroughttotheUnitedStatesillegallyaschildrentoregisterandavoidimmediatedeportation.”
– Denyservicetogaypeople“Decidethatabusinessowner’sreligiousbeliefsorfreespeechrightscanjustifyrefusingsomeservicestogaypeople.”
– Publicfundsforreligiousschoolstudents“Decidethataprogramthatfinanciallysupportsstudentsattendingprivateschoolsmayalsoincludereligiousschoolswithoutviolatingtheconstitution.”
– StrikedownACA“Strikedownthe2010healthcarereformlaw,alsocalledObamacare,bydeclaringitunconstitutional.”
– 2ndAmend.prohibitssemi-automaticrifleban“Decidethatabanonsemi-automaticriflesviolatesthe2ndamendmentandthusisunconstitutional.”
– EmploymentdiscriminationincludesLGBTQ“Decidethatlawsprohibitingemploymentdiscriminationonthebasisofsexalsoapplytodiscriminationbasedonsexualorientationofgay,lesbianortransgenderindividuals.”
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
36
Publicviewsofpossiblefuturedecisions.
Str
Oppose Oppose FavorStr
FavorDon’tknow
OverturnRoev.Wade 47 14 13 16 9EndDACA 37 16 20 17 9Denyservicetogaypeople 40 17 15 19 9Publicfundsforreligiousschoolstudents
17 16 31 22 14
StrikedownACA 35 17 15 23 102ndAmend.prohibitssemi-automaticrifleban
36 17 14 25 8
EmploymentdiscriminationincludesLGBTQ
18 12 22 39 9
PublicsupportandoppositionfordecisionspastandfutureCasesvaryinsaliencewiththepublic,butforeachofthe14casesonwhichweaskedtherespondent’sopiniontherewerestatisticallysignificanteffectsofpartisanshipandideology,allproperlyalignedwithconventionalnotionsofliberalandconservativedirectionsofthedecisions.
Inthetablesbelowweproceedfromthecasewhichismoststronglystructuredbythecombinationofpartyandideology(opiniononoverturningtheAffordableCareAct)tothecaseleaststructuredbypartyandideology(theconsiderationofraceincollegeadmissions).Thedegreeofstructuringismeasuredbythepercentofvarianceexplained(“R-square”)byaregressionofopinionaboutthedecisiononpartyidentificationandliberal-conservativeideology.Thismeasurecanrangefromzero(nostructureatall)to100percent(aperfectfit).
Theextenttowhichpartyandideologystructuretheseviewsvariesconsiderably,fromexplainingaslittleas3.5percentofthevarianceindecisionpreferencetoexplainingasmuchas47percentofthevariance.
Fewerthan10percentofrespondentssaidtheylackedanopiniononthesecases,withtheexceptionofcorporatepoliticalspending(10.3percent),publicfundsforreligiousschoolstudents(14.0percent),andpartisangerrymanders(29.1percent).
Whilesimplyofferingafavorableorunfavorableviewofeachcasedoesnotqualifyasdeepunderstandingoftheissues,thefactthatopinionconsistentlyalignswithbothpartyandideologyatteststotheabilityofpoliticalpreferencestostructurecitizens’viewsofcasesbeforetheCourt.
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
37
Case:StrikedownACA
Onbalance,respondentsopposeoverturningtheAffordableCareAct.
[Strikedownthe2010healthcarereformlaw,alsocalledObamacare,bydeclaringitunconstitutional]HowmuchdoyoufavororopposethefollowingpossibleSupremeCourtdecisions?
Response PercentStrOppose 35Oppose 17Favor 15StrFavor 23Don’tknow 10
Opiniononthisissueisstronglyrelatedtopartyidentificationandtoideology.Partyandideologyexplain47percentofthevarianceinopinion.
PositionondecisiontostrikedownACAbypartyID
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowRep 7 11 23 51 9LeanRep 10 18 27 41 5Ind 25 22 22 12 18LeanDem 52 27 5 3 13Dem 66 17 4 6 7
PositionondecisiontostrikedownACAbyideology
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowVeryCon 3 16 7 70 4Conservative 11 11 25 45 8Moderate 32 22 18 14 13Liberal 67 18 3 6 6VeryLib 79 4 3 5 9
Case:Upheldtravelban
AmajorityopposethedecisionupholdingtheTrumpadministrationtravelbanoncitizensfromMuslim-majoritycountries.
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
38
[UpheldPresidentDonaldTrump’stravelbanagainstcitizensoffiveMuslim-majoritycountries]HowmuchdoyoufavororopposethefollowingrecentSupremeCourtdecisions?
Response PercentStrOppose 33Oppose 16Favor 19StrFavor 23Don’tknow 10
OpinionontheCourt’srulingupholdingPresidentTrump’stravelbanagainstcitizensfromfiveMuslim-majoritycountriesisalmostasstronglystructuredbypartisanshipandideologyasisopinionontheACA,explaining41percentofthevariance.
PositionondecisiontoupholdtravelbanbypartyID
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowRep 7 8 23 56 7LeanRep 6 10 30 41 13Ind 27 25 21 11 15LeanDem 52 19 11 6 12Dem 59 17 13 3 8
Positionondecisiontoupholdtravelbanbyideology
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowVeryCon 9 10 15 60 6Conservative 10 8 25 49 8Moderate 29 21 23 15 12Liberal 59 15 10 7 9VeryLib 80 10 2 6 3
Case:Denyservicetogaypeople
OpinionsonissuesinvolvingLGBTQpeoplevaryinhowstronglystructuredtheyarebypartisanshipandideology.Theissuemoststronglystructurediswhetherreligiousbeliefsofbusinessownerscanjustifyrefusingservicetogaypeople.
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
39
Amajorityopposearulingthatwouldallowabusinesstorefuseservicetogaypeople.
[Decidethatabusinessowner’sreligiousbeliefsorfreespeechrightscanjustifyrefusingsomeservicestogaypeople]HowmuchdoyoufavororopposethefollowingpossibleSupremeCourtdecisions?
Response PercentStrOppose 40Oppose 17Favor 15StrFavor 19Don’tknow 9
Opiniononthisissueisstronglyrelatedtopartyidentificationandtoideology,with31percentofthevarianceinopinionexplained.
PositionondecisiontoallowbusinesstorefuseservicetogaypeoplebypartyID
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowRep 20 12 19 40 8LeanRep 23 12 19 36 9Ind 32 17 20 14 17LeanDem 53 24 13 4 6Dem 59 21 10 6 5
Positionondecisiontoallowbusinesstorefuseservicetogaypeoplebyideology
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowVeryCon 7 15 12 57 9Conservative 12 14 24 44 5Moderate 42 19 17 10 12Liberal 64 20 8 6 3VeryLib 76 5 4 5 9
Case:Excludebirthcontrolcoverage
Religiousobjectionsalsoariseinthecaseofabusiness’sdecliningtoprovidebirthcontrolaspartofanemployeehealthplan.
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
40
Amajorityopposeallowingbusinessestodenybirthcontrolcoverageintheiremployeeinsuranceplans.
[Decidedthatprivately-heldfor-profitcompaniesmaychoosenottopayforcoverageofprescriptionbirthcontrolintheirworkers’healthplansifthecompany’sownerhasreligiousobjections]HowmuchdoyoufavororopposethefollowingpossibleSupremeCourtdecisions?
Response PercentStrOppose 44Oppose 19Favor 13StrFavor 14Don’tknow 10
Twenty-eightpercentofthevarianceinopiniononthiscaseexplainedbypartyandideology.
PositionondecisiontoallowbusinesstodenybirthcontrolcoveragebypartyID
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowRep 23 17 21 31 7LeanRep 24 20 20 27 9Ind 46 18 14 7 16LeanDem 57 19 10 1 13Dem 63 21 5 3 8
Positionondecisiontoallowbusinesstodenybirthcontrolcoveragebyideology
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowVeryCon 14 17 13 49 7Conservative 23 16 24 30 8Moderate 44 25 12 6 13Liberal 67 13 9 2 8VeryLib 84 4 3 6 3
Case:OverturnRoev.Wade
Roev.Wadehasbeenatthecenterofpoliticalcontroversysinceitwasdecidedin1973.Ifthereisanysurprisehere,itisthatitisnotthemoststronglystructuredcasebypartisanshipandideology.
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
41
AmajorityofrespondentsopposeoverturningRoe.
[OverturnRoeversusWade,thusstrikedownthe1973decisionthatmadeabortionlegalinall50states]HowmuchdoyoufavororopposethefollowingpossibleSupremeCourtdecisions?
Response PercentStrOppose 47Oppose 14Favor 13StrFavor 16Don’tknow 9
Justoverone-quarter(27percent)ofthevarianceinopinionisexplainedbypartyandideology.
PositionondecisiontooverturnRoev.WadebypartyID
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowRep 26 18 15 31 11LeanRep 26 15 23 26 10Ind 37 17 20 9 17LeanDem 65 15 12 2 6Dem 70 11 6 8 5
PositionondecisiontooverturnRoev.Wadebyideology
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowVeryCon 9 11 20 58 3Conservative 22 17 20 32 9Moderate 46 18 14 8 14Liberal 77 10 5 4 3VeryLib 84 1 3 8 4
Case:Same-sexmarriage
SupportfortheCourt’sdecisiontoestablishaconstitutionalrighttomarriageforsame-sexcouplesreceivesmajoritysupport.
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
42
[Establishedaconstitutionalrightforsame-sexcouplestomarry]HowmuchdoyoufavororopposethefollowingrecentSupremeCourtdecisions?
Response PercentStrOppose 23Oppose 13Favor 20StrFavor 36Don’tknow 9
Aswiththeprevioustwodecisions,justoverone-quarter(27percent)ofthevarianceinopinionisexplainedbypartyandideology.
Positionondecisionestablishingarighttosame-sexmarriagebypartyID
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowRep 42 19 17 16 7LeanRep 34 10 22 24 10Ind 15 14 27 29 15LeanDem 6 9 21 59 5Dem 13 9 19 51 8
Positionondecisionestablishingarighttosame-sexmarriagebyideology
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowVeryCon 54 21 9 8 7Conservative 43 20 19 8 10Moderate 17 11 26 34 12Liberal 8 6 17 66 2VeryLib 9 5 5 79 1
Case:Righttofirearm
DebatesovertheextenttowhichtheSecondAmendmentprotectsindividualgunpossessionhasalsostructuredpoliticalconflictinrecentdecades.InthiscasethequestionwasframedinlanguagedrawingonJusticeScalia’sopinionfortheCourt,whichstatedthattheSecondAmendment“protectsanindividualrighttopossessafirearm...andtousethatarmfortraditionallylawfulpurposes,suchasself-defensewithinthehome.”
AsubstantialmajorityfavortheCourt’sdecisioninthiscase.
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
43
In2008theCourtruledthattheSecondAmendmentprotectsanindividualrighttopossessafirearmunconnectedwithserviceinamilitia…Howstronglydoyoufavororopposethatdecision?
Response PercentStrOppose 11Oppose 13Favor 27StrFavor 40Don’tknow 8
Partyandideologystructureopiniononthisdecision,accountingforjustunderaquarterofthevariance(22percent).
Positionon2ndamendmentrighttofirearmsbypartyID
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowRep 4 4 15 73 4LeanRep 2 7 17 67 7Ind 8 20 25 32 16LeanDem 15 14 46 20 6Dem 21 17 36 18 8Positionon2ndamendmentrighttofirearmsbyideology
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowVeryCon 1 11 7 76 4Conservative 4 10 15 66 5Moderate 8 12 34 35 10Liberal 22 15 36 20 6VeryLib 38 17 17 18 10
Case:EndDACA
Wenowmovetoissuesthatarelessstronglystructuredbypartyandideology,thoughtherearestillstatisticallysignificantrelationshipswithboth.
ApotentialcourtrulingallowingtheadministrationtoendtheDACAprogramisopposedbyamajorityofrespondents.
[DecidetheadministrationcanendtheDACAprogramthatallowsyoungpeoplewhowerebroughttotheUnitedStatesillegallyaschildrentoregisterandavoidimmediate
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
44
deportation]HowmuchdoyoufavororopposethefollowingpossibleSupremeCourtdecisions?
Response PercentStrOppose 37Oppose 16Favor 20StrFavor 17Don’tknow 9
Whilebothpartyandideologyhavestatisticallysignificanteffectsonviewsofthisissue,thevarianceexplainedisbelow20percent(17percent).
PositiononallowadministrationtoendDACAbypartyID
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowRep 21 18 29 25 8LeanRep 21 16 30 23 10Ind 22 17 28 19 15LeanDem 55 23 10 7 4Dem 58 12 10 12 8
PositiononallowadministrationtoendDACAbyideology
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowVeryCon 12 22 26 34 5Conservative 16 17 30 29 8Moderate 36 18 23 11 11Liberal 61 10 9 14 6VeryLib 78 3 2 13 5
Case:Publicfundsforreligiousschoolstudents
Publicfundingforreligiousschoolshasbeencontroversial.Weaskedaboutacaseposingtheissueofwhetherafundingprogramthatcoversstudentsattendingprivateschoolsmayconstitutionallyalsocoverstudentsattendingreligiousschools.
Amajoritysupportallowingsuchfundingtogotostudentsattendingreligiousschools.
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
45
[Decidethataprogramthatfinanciallysupportsstudentsattendingprivateschoolsmayalsoincludereligiousschoolswithoutviolatingtheconstitution]HowmuchdoyoufavororopposethefollowingpossibleSupremeCourtdecisions?
Response PercentStrOppose 17Oppose 16Favor 31StrFavor 22Don’tknow 14
Partyandideologystructureopiniononthiscase,with15percentofthevarianceexplained.
PositiononallowingpublicfundstosupportstudentsatreligiousschoolsbypartyID
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowRep 7 11 35 36 12LeanRep 9 11 34 37 11Ind 16 13 36 15 21LeanDem 29 19 23 15 14Dem 25 22 28 12 13
Positiononallowingpublicfundstosupportstudentsatreligiousschoolsbyideology
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowVeryCon 6 16 28 43 7Conservative 7 11 36 36 10Moderate 15 15 34 18 17Liberal 29 21 26 11 13VeryLib 38 20 14 11 17
Case:PartisanGerrymanders
In2019,theCourtruledthatgerrymandersbasedonpoliticaladvantagewerebeyondthereachofthefederalcourts.
Despitetheintenseinterestinthiscaseamongthemostpoliticallyactivecitizensandpartyorganizations,thisdecisiondidnotregisterwithsome29percentofrespondents,whosaidtheydidn’thaveapositiononit.Aplurality,45percent,opposethedecision,while26percentfavorit.
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
46
[Decidedthatfederalcourtslacktheconstitutionalauthoritytoruleoncasesinvolvinglegislativeandcongressionaldistrictboundariesdesignedtofavoronepoliticalparty(knownasgerrymanders)]HowmuchdoyoufavororopposethefollowingrecentSupremeCourtdecisions?
Response PercentStrOppose 26Oppose 19Favor 15StrFavor 11Don’tknow 29
Politicalactivistswereintenselyconcernedwiththiscase,butamongrank-and-filecitizenspartyandideologyaccountforonly11percentofthevarianceinopinion.
PositiononauthorityoffederalcourtstoruleonpoliticalgerrymandersbypartyID
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowRep 13 19 21 13 34LeanRep 16 16 24 21 23Ind 22 19 13 9 36LeanDem 37 17 16 7 24Dem 40 20 9 7 25
Positiononauthorityoffederalcourtstoruleonpoliticalgerrymandersbyideology
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowVeryCon 14 27 20 18 21Conservative 15 16 23 16 31Moderate 22 20 15 10 33Liberal 45 14 9 7 24VeryLib 57 18 2 5 18
Case:2ndAmend.prohibitssemi-automaticrifleban
Respondentswereaskedaboutahypotheticaldecisionoverturningabanonsemi-automaticriflesbasedonthe2ndamendment.Amajorityopposesuchadecision.
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
47
[Decidethatabanonsemi-automaticriflesviolatesthe2ndamendmentandthusisunconstitutional]HowmuchdoyoufavororopposethefollowingpossibleSupremeCourtdecisions?
Response PercentStrOppose 36Oppose 17Favor 14StrFavor 25Don’tknow 8
Partyandideologyprovideonlymodeststructuringofopiniononthisissue,thoughbothhavesmallbutstatisticallysignificanteffects.Thevarianceexplainedis11percent.
Positiononstrikingdownbanonsemi-automaticriflesbypartyID
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowRep 22 17 15 40 7LeanRep 23 12 23 34 7Ind 23 23 16 21 16LeanDem 53 18 13 9 6Dem 52 15 9 19 5
Positiononstrikingdownbanonsemi-automaticriflesbyideology
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowVeryCon 20 11 24 44 1Conservative 24 16 19 33 8Moderate 34 21 13 22 9Liberal 48 15 7 23 8VeryLib 70 8 7 10 5
Case:EmploymentdiscriminationincludesLGBTQ
Thelastthreeissuesareveryweaklystructuredbypartyorideology,thoughnomorethan10percentofrespondentssaythattheylackanopiniononeach.
AcasebeforetheCourtthistermconsiderswhetheralaw(TitleVIIoftheCivilRightsActof1964)prohibitingemploymentdiscriminationonthebasisofsexalsoappliestodiscriminationbasedonsexualorientationforgay,lesbian,or
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
48
transgenderpeople.Aclearmajorityfavorextendinganti-employmentdiscriminationprotectionsinthiscase.
[Decidethatlawsprohibitingemploymentdiscriminationonthebasisofsexalsoapplytodiscriminationbasedonsexualorientationofgay,lesbianortransgenderindividuals]HowmuchdoyoufavororopposethefollowingpossibleSupremeCourtdecisions?
Response PercentStrOppose 18Oppose 12Favor 22StrFavor 39Don’tknow 9
Onthisissuepartisanshipandideologyprovideonlyatraceofstructuretoopinion,explainingjust6percentofthevariance.
PositiononapplyingsexdiscriminationinemploymenttoLGBTQpeoplebypartyID
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowRep 19 20 26 24 11LeanRep 15 15 25 33 11Ind 15 8 28 32 17LeanDem 14 8 19 57 3Dem 21 8 17 50 4
PositiononapplyingsexdiscriminationinemploymenttoLGBTQpeoplebyideology
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowVeryCon 28 19 23 21 8Conservative 21 20 26 19 13Moderate 16 11 28 36 9Liberal 18 8 9 62 3VeryLib 16 2 7 70 4
Case:Corporatepoliticalspending
The2010rulinginCitizensUnitedv.FEC,allowingcorporationsandunionstospendunlimitedamountsofmoneytosupportoropposepoliticalcandidates,iswidelyopposed.
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
49
[Decidedthatcorporationsandunionscanspendunlimitedamountsofmoneytodirectlysupportoropposepoliticalcandidates]HowmuchdoyoufavororopposethefollowingrecentSupremeCourtdecisions?
Response PercentStrOppose 53Oppose 22Favor 11StrFavor 3Don’tknow 10
Oppositiontothisdecisioniswidespreadacrossbothpartyandideology,accountingforthelowvarianceexplainedofjustfivepercent.
PositiononCitizensUnitedbypartyID
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowRep 44 24 16 7 10LeanRep 46 30 11 6 8Ind 48 20 12 1 18LeanDem 68 15 6 2 8Dem 62 21 8 1 8
PositiononCitizensUnitedbyideology
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowVeryCon 51 26 11 8 5Conservative 39 28 18 4 10Moderate 51 23 11 2 12Liberal 68 16 5 3 8VeryLib 77 10 6 2 5
Case:Raceinadmissions
TheuseofraceasonefactorincollegeadmissionshasbeenupheldbytheCourtsincethe1978Bakkedecision,includingtherecentdecisioninFisherv.UniversityofTexasin2016.Despitethishistory,thepublicissubstantiallyopposedtothisuseofraceinadmissions.
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
50
[Decidedcollegescanuseraceasonefactorindecidingwhichapplicantstoadmit]HowmuchdoyoufavororopposethefollowingrecentSupremeCourtdecisions?
Response PercentStrOppose 57Oppose 21Favor 11StrFavor 4Don’tknow 7
AswithCitizensUnited,oppositiontothisdecisioniswidespreadacrossbothpartyandideology,accountingfortheextremelylowvarianceexplainedofjustunder5percent.Despitetheverylowexplanatorypower,theeffectsofbothpartyandideologymanagetobarelyreachstatisticalsignificance.
PositiononuseofraceincollegeadmissionsbypartyID
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowRep 63 26 4 2 4LeanRep 67 22 4 1 6Ind 50 20 9 5 15LeanDem 52 22 16 7 2Dem 54 17 18 4 7
Positiononuseofraceincollegeadmissionsbyideology
StrOppose Oppose Favor StrFavor Don’tknowVeryCon 68 21 3 4 3Conservative 59 28 7 1 5Moderate 57 23 8 4 8Liberal 53 16 20 4 8VeryLib 52 4 23 16 4
SummaryInsummary,opinionsaboutSupremeCourtdecisionsaregenerallystructuredbypartisanandideologicalidentification,althoughthestrengthofthatstructuringvarieswidelyacrosscases.Innocasedidwefindanutterlackofstructuring,andinsevenoffourteencasespartyandideologyexplainedover20percentofthevarianceinopinion.
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
51
Whilethepublicisunlikelytounderstandthelegalissuesindetail,thepoliticalandideologicalsignalsaboutthecasesallowthepublicsomeroughpositioningthatcomportstosomeextentwiththeirpolicypreferences.
POLITICSLetusturntohowpoliticsaffectviewsoftheCourtandhowviewsoftheCourtaffectvotes.
ItwouldbeincorrecttoclaimthatpoliticshavenotbeenanintegralpartoftheSupremeCourtandnominationstotheCourtsincethefounding.RecentdecadeshavenonethelessseenavisibleincreaseinpartisanrancorovernominationstotheSupremeCourtaswellaslowerfederalcourts.
InprevioussectionswehaveseenhowpartisanandideologicalattachmentsstructuremanyperceptionsoftheCourtandofitsdecisions.Inarepublicwherepoliticsarestructuredbypartyandideologyandwherefederaljudgesandjusticesarenominatedandconfirmedbypartisanelectedofficials,itwouldbesurprisingwerethisnotthecase.
PartisanandideologicalstructuringisalsolikelyaresultoftheneedforcitizenstosimplifytheoverwhelmingcomplexityofthelawandCourtdecisions.ThosewithoutlegaltrainingandnotengagedinthepracticeoflawcanhardlybeexpectedtodevelopadeepunderstandingoftheissuesfacingtheCourt.
Whiledebateovernominationshasbeenintenseattimes,thedirectlinkageofpoliticstonominationstotheSupremeCourtroseinsaliencewiththedeathofJusticeScaliainFebruary2016andtheensuingdelayinfillingthevacancy.The2016electionalsoexplicitlyconnectednominationswiththepresidentialcandidates,mostclearlyincandidateDonaldTrump’sreleaseofa“shortlist”fromwhichhepledgedtoselectnomineestotheCourt.Itisthereforeofinteresttoexaminehowcitizensconnecttheirperceptionsofthejudicialbranchtothepoliticsofpresidentialcampaigns.
PerceptionofthejusticesInanearliersection,wesawthepublic’slimitedawarenessofthejustices,withtheabilitytoassignafavorableorunfavorableviewrangingfromaslowas16percent(JusticeBeyer)toashighas59percent(JusticeGinsburg).Hereweshiftthefocustothefavorableorunfavorableratingsgiventothejustices,andinparticularthequestionofwhethertheseperceptionsaresystematicallystructured.Withlowvisibilityandlimitedinformationaboutthejustices,itisplausiblethereisverylittlestructuretotheevaluations.WemightwellexpectlittlestructuretoperceptionsatleastforthelessvisiblemembersoftheCourt.
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
52
Thefavorabilityratingsofthejusticesareshowninthetablebelow.
SomejusticesoftheSupremeCourtarebetterknownthanothers.Foreachofthesenameshaveyouneverheardofthem,heardofthembutdon’tknowenoughtohaveanopinionofthem,haveafavorableopinionorhaveanunfavorableopinion?
Unfavorable Unabletorate FavorableBreyer 5 84 11Kagan 7 78 15Alito 8 78 15Gorsuch 12 70 18Roberts 9 66 25Sotomayor 11 59 30Thomas 23 49 28Kavanaugh 32 42 26Ginsburg 17 41 41
Infact,partyandideologyareconsistentandstatisticallysignificantpredictorsofattitudetowardeachjustice,withtheexceptionsofChiefJusticeRobertsforwhompartyidentificationhasaninsignificantcoefficientandofJusticeBreyerforwhomtheideologycoefficientisnotsignificant.Foreachotherjusticebothpartyandideologyhavestatisticallysignificantcoefficientsandintheexpecteddirection.LiberalsandDemocratsaremorefavorabletowardGinsburg,Kagan,andSotomayor,whileconservativesandRepublicansaremorefavorabletoAlito,Gorsuch,Kavanaugh,andThomas.
Coefficientsforpartyidentificationandliberal-conservativeideologyaspredictorsoffavorableorunfavorableopinionofeachjustice(AllarestatisticallysignificantexceptpartyforRobertsandideologyforBreyer)
Justice Party IdeologyAlito -0.181 -0.390Breyer 0.175 0.121Ginsburg 0.475 0.630Gorsuch -0.298 -0.686Kagan 0.321 0.600Kavanaugh -0.666 -0.846Roberts -0.006 -0.248Thomas -0.270 -0.596Sotomayor 0.434 0.667
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
53
Theeffectsofpartyandideologyonperceptionofthejusticesareshowninthefigurebelow.
JusticesGinsburg,Kagan,andSotomayorclustertogether,withopinionofJusticeBreyerlessstructuredbypartyorideology.PartisanshiphasverylittleeffectonperceptionofChiefJusticeRoberts,thoughthereisaneffectofideology.JusticesAlito,Gorsuch,andThomashavesimilarpartycoefficients,butthereisasomewhatstrongereffectofideologyforGorsuchthanforAlito,withThomasinbetweenthem.EvaluationsofJusticeKavanaugharethemoststronglystructuredofanyjusticeonbothpartisanandideologicalbases.
Whilethestrengthoftheserelationshipsarelessthanwewouldexpectforpartisancandidatesforoffice,theconsistentstructuringalongpartyandideologicallinesdemonstratesthatevaluationsofjusticesareconsistentwiththepartyandideologicaltiesofvoters.
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
54
TheCourtandpresidentialopinions
AppointmentstotheSupremeCourtemergedasanimportantelementinthe2016presidentialcampaignwhenDonaldTrumpreleasedalistofnamesfromwhichhepledgedtoselectnomineestotheCourt.WithtwoappointmentstotheCourt,thisissuehasremainedsalientasacongressionalissueaswell.
AskedhowmuchtheyapproveofPresidentTrump’shandlingofSupremeCourtappointments,43percentapproveand57percentdisapprove.
[AppointmentstotheUSSupremeCourt]HowmuchdoyouapproveordisapproveofthewayDonaldTrumpishandlingthefollowingissues?
Response PercentStronglyapprove 22Somewhatapprove 21Somewhatdisapprove 19Stronglydisapprove 38
Forcomparison,40percentapproveofPresidentTrump’shandlingofhisjoboverall,while60percentdisapprove,aslightlyworseoverallapprovalratingthanforhishandlingofCourtnominations.
Overall,howmuchdoyouapproveordisapproveofthewayDonaldTrumpishandlinghisjobaspresident?
Response PercentStronglyapprove 20Somewhatapprove 20Somewhatdisapprove 14Stronglydisapprove 46
AskedabouttheirconfidenceinafutureTrumpnominee,32percentsaytheyhaveagreatdealorquitealotofconfidence,13percenthavesome,while56percentsaytheyhavelittleornoconfidencethatthenextnomineewillbetherightkindofpersonfortheCourt.
IfthereisanotheropeningontheSupremeCourt,howmuchconfidencedoyouhavethatPresidentDonaldTrumpwillselecttherightkindofpersontositontheSupremeCourt?
Response PercentAgreatdealofconfidence 19
MEDIA AND RECIPIENT ADVISORY: All information contained in this report is embargoed until 8:45 A.M. CDT, Monday, October 21, 2019, when released publicly by Marquette University Law School as part of its conference “Public Understanding and Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Under this embargo, all use is strictly prohibited.
55
Quitealotofconfidence 13Someconfidence 13Verylittleconfidence 19Noneatall 37
Viewsofpresidentialperformanceoverallorinjudicialmattersare,unsurprisingly,closelytiedtopartisanship,withnearlyidenticalcorrelationsof.74and.73respectively.
ApprovalofnominationstotheSupremeCourtbypartyidentification
Stronglyapprove
Somewhatapprove
Somewhatdisapprove
Stronglydisapprove
Rep 59 30 7 4LeanRep
39 41 12 8
Ind 7 28 31 34LeanDem
1 5 31 63
Dem 2 7 22 69
Amultivariatemodelofoverallapproval,includingtheeffectsofpartisanshipandideology,findsthatapprovalofCourtnominationshasastrongandstatisticallysignificantrelationshipwithoveralljobapproval,andthatthefavorabilityratingofJusticeKavanaughalsoisstatisticallysignificant,thoughtheratingofTrump’sotherappointee,JusticeGorsuch,isnotstatisticallysignificant.
Handlingofnominationsalsohasstatisticallysignificanteffectsonvotechoiceforpresidentin2020.AmultivariatemodelthatpredictsvotebetweenTrumpandJoeBidenandoneforthechoiceofTrumporElizabethWarrenresultinsimilarconclusions.Themodel,whichincludespartisanship,ideology,andoveralljobapproval,findsthatthereisanadditionalstatisticallysignificanteffectofapprovalofCourtnominations,andoffavorabilitytoJusticeKavanaugh,withnostatisticallysignificanteffectforfavorabilityofJusticeGorsuch.
Whileotherfactorssuchasparty,ideologyandoverallperformancearepowerfulpredictorsofvotechoice,thestatisticalmodelsupportstheideathatCourtappointmentsareanadditionalfactorinevaluationsofpresidentialperformanceandinvotechoice.