Supreme Court to rule on health with favorability at low ebb
The U.S. Supreme Court, split 5-4 on ideological lines, faces a decline in its favorability rating as it prepares to rule on the "Obamacare" health law Thursday.
Supreme Court to rule on health with favorability at low ebb
Thomas Fitzgerald, Inquirer Politics Writer
On Thursday, the Supreme Court will pass judgment on President Obama’s health-care law.
But the law, with its requirement that individuals buy health insurance or pay a fine, is not the only thing on trial. The court itself stands before the bar of public opinion, weighing in on a highly partisan issue with what polls show is a decline in the traditional perception that it is above politics.
Earlier this month, a New York Times/CBS News poll found that just 44 percent of Americans approved of the job the high court is doing, and three quarters said that the justices’ personal political views sometimes influence how they rule on cases.
And a survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted in April, found that public esteem for the Supreme Court had reached a 25-year low. The poll found that 52 percent of Americans had a favorable view of the court, down from the previous low point of 57 percent, reached in 2005, after a bruising battle over Senate filibusters of judicial nominations, and 2007.
In part, that could be because of an increase in the mistrust Americans have for major societal institutions, particularly government. Some scholars, however, say that there is a sense the court is more political than before, citing 5-4 decisions along ideological lines such as Bush v. Gore, which decided the winner of the 2000 presidential election, and the 2010 ruling in Citizens United, which opened the way for unlimited corporate and union spending in elections.
The justices, while they certainly do not take polls before making their decisions, are no doubt aware of their public standing. After all, Chief Justice John Roberts told The New Republic in a 2006 interview, at the end of his first court term, that the “credibility and legitimacy” of the Supreme Court was threatened by a steady output of ideologically charged 5-4 decisions on controversial issues.
“In the end I think they pull a King Solomon on health care,” splitting the difference on the law, said Daniel F. McElhatton, a Philadelphia-based Democratic strategist. “The damage to the legitimacy of the court if they totally overturn is too much even for the most conservative of the bunch.”
That is one potential outcome – for instance, striking down the individual mandate but letting other provisions of the law remain standing – but so is upholding the statute on the basis of the strict-constructionist principle of deference to Congress.
Stay tuned. The decision should be announced around 10 a.m. Thursday.
The Affordable Health Care Act was shady to begin with. With Pelosi's "we dont know what's in it, that's why we need to pass it to find out" to it being such a party polarized law, there is no chance this law would be accepted in its current form. Democrats shoved it down the throat of the US and now (either on Thursday) or in Nov the US will vomit this abortion of a law back up. Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for passing this law and Republicans should be ashamed for letting health care costs get this far out of control.- Romney / Obamacare was based on solid constitutional ground.
Romneycare was vetted and promoted by extreme conservatives scholars for twenty years before it was adopted by Romney in MA.
Supreme Court will loose all credibility if it strikes down a law based on hundreds of legal precedences.— Seed - 6 million young Americans will loose their health converage instantly.
Thousands of older and younger Americans will die as they will loose their coverage.
Supreme Court can not strike down a law based on hundreds of legal precedences. Scalia and his extreme views have been isolated by Roberts and Kenney. They will support rule of law rather than personal views and politics.— Seed - Scalia's lack of judgement and bloging from Supreme Court Bench will be stopped by Chief justice Roberts.
Justice Roberts shut Scalia and his rant down during the Arizona Immigration case. He will reprimend him next time if Scalia turns into a politician and try to control the legislative branch from this unelected position as SC justice.— Seed - Let me gloat; I was right.
But Justice Robert's deserves lot of credit for standing up for law and justice in this country.
No matter how much we hate the lawyers, rest of the world respects us because we are a country where justice prevails most of the time and everyone has the opportunity get fair treatment.— Seed - Let me make the next bold prediction: Ohio goes to Obama in 2012.
Ohio citizens suffered the ultimate indignity of loosing jobs and suffered from uncertainty of healthcare for their family as a consequence of that indignity.
Osama is dead and GM is alive bringing thousands of jobs to Ohio. Obamacare brings the certainty of healthcare for their children.
Ohio will reward Obama for bring manufacturing jobs back to US and healthcare for their children.— Seed - Here here. — CommonSense in Philly
Comment removed.- Here here....again @ keprod3 — CommonSense in Philly
- I recommend the author read "Why Americans Hate the Media and How It Matters" by Dr. Jonathan Ladd. It explores how the public's distrust of the once respected institututional media coencides with media's alliance with a specific a political objective. The result became the demise of MSM and a foothold for partisian, non mainstream media to flourish.
The once revered media now is relegated to writing stories about ....how 44% of the people don't approve of the job the court is doing -as if that is in any way relevant. Heck, the same 44% of America can't name the three branches of government- but they know who Snooki is. Why not conduct a poll on whether the populous likes what the Justices wear.— tooly - And tooly needs to learn how "internet" works; rather than posting same items twice as he was not sure how it works :-) — Seed
- Perhaps a dictionary would assist you in learning the difference between "loose" and "lose". ;)
— Ralph 1 - I recommend the author read "Why Americans Hate the Media and How It Matters" by Dr. Jonathan Ladd. It explores how the public's distrust of the once respected institututional media coencides with media's alliance with a specific a political objective. The result became the demise of MSM and a foothold for partisian, non mainstream media to flourish. The once revered media now is relegated to writing stories about ....how 44% of the people don't approve of the job the court is doing -as if that is in any way relevant. Heck, the same 44% of America can't name the three branches of government- but they know who Snooki is. Why not conduct a poll on whether the populous likes what the Justices wear. (HTML deleted)— tooly
- Another Institution liberals are tearing down becasue they dont own it. The damage is severe. I'm glad we got the Philadelphia democratic strategists take on it. Based on the damage democrats have done to this city we should split him like Solomon's son.— tr88
- I'm registered to vote as an independent, and usually vote democratic in mayoral elections. IF the Republican Party in Philadelphia would produce a viable and credible candidate, I might well vote for him/her. But for god sakes Philly republicans, give philly citizens a candidate they can vote for and not the jerks you produced in the last 2 mayoral elections. — CommonSense in Philly
You can reach Tom Fitzgerald at 215-854-2718 or tfitzgerald@phillynews.com.
Reach Thomas at tfitzgerald@phillynews.com.
