Get the Ricochet app

Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

Kite and Key Media: Our Misunderstood Judiciary

Jon Gabriel, Ed.
@jon
Join to bookmark8likesJoin to like5comments

The Supreme Court has been at the center of controversy in recent years. But here’s the thing: The Supreme Court has been at the center of controversy … pretty much forever.

In 2022 and 2023, only 40% of Americans approved of the U.S. Supreme Court, a record low. And around half of Americans tell pollsters that, rather than being neutral arbiters of the law, the justices are “just like other politicians.”

While the media tends to focus on hot-button issues that divide the Court, the justices actually agree a lot more than you might think. During the past decade, an average of 43% of Supreme Court cases were decided unanimously every year. The reason: because there’s pretty wide agreement between the justices that their role is to interpret the law free from political considerations.

So, while many Americans regard today’s Supreme Court as being uniquely out of control, there’s actually nothing unique about it. The Court has been a lightning rod throughout our history precisely because it’s charged with resolving the hardest questions in American law. As a result, many Americans criticize the Supreme Court when what they actually dislike is the content of our laws or the Constitution.

This post was promoted to the Main Feed by an editor.

Discussion (5)

  • TBA@RobtGilsdorf

    When everyone feels like the Supreme Court is stupid the rulings probably - in the aggregate - best reflect American popular opinion.

    Which is not what a Supreme Court is for.

    The [redacted]s.

  • Full Size Tabby@FullSizeTabby

    I will put some blame for some of the recent controversies on the Supreme Court justices themselves.

    For a few decades in the middle to late 20th century the Supreme Court did weigh in on some stuff that was beyond its jurisdiction of "interpreting" the law and Constitution. This was mostly the product of the "living constitution" movement promoted in law schools of the day.

    The public (and worse, the politicians) got used to the Supreme Court making decisions for them in areas that really should have been decided by the people and the politicians.

    Now, the public (and the politicians) are having a hard time adjusting when the Supreme Court makes a decision that puts the political burden back on the people and their politicians.

  • TBA@RobtGilsdorf
    ReplyingtoFull Size Tabby

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    I will put some blame for some of the recent controversies on the Supreme Court justices themselves.

    For a few decades in the middle to late 20th century the Supreme Court did weigh in on some stuff that was beyond its jurisdiction of “interpreting” the law and Constitution. This was mostly the product of the “living constitution” movement promoted in law schools of the day.

    The public (and worse, the politicians) got used to the Supreme Court making decisions for them in areas that really should have been decided by the people and the politicians.

    Now, the public (and the politicians) are having a hard time adjusting when the Supreme Court makes a decision that puts the political burden back on the people and their politicians.

    What is it about the executive, the judicial, and the legislative that they don't want to do their own jobs but they do want to do each others'? We ordered a tree and we get a woven topiary. Shaped like Mickey Mouse.

  • The Reticulator@TheReticulator
    ReplyingtoTBA

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    I will put some blame for some of the recent controversies on the Supreme Court justices themselves.

    For a few decades in the middle to late 20th century the Supreme Court did weigh in on some stuff that was beyond its jurisdiction of “interpreting” the law and Constitution. This was mostly the product of the “living constitution” movement promoted in law schools of the day.

    The public (and worse, the politicians) got used to the Supreme Court making decisions for them in areas that really should have been decided by the people and the politicians.

    Now, the public (and the politicians) are having a hard time adjusting when the Supreme Court makes a decision that puts the political burden back on the people and their politicians.

    TBA (View Comment):

    What is it about the executive, the judicial, and the legislative that they don’t want to do their own jobs but they do want to do each others’? We ordered a tree and we get a woven topiary. Shaped like Mickey Mouse.

    It's much like news reporters who don't want to do news reporting, but somebody else's job instead.

    And historians who want to do political activism instead of history.