Marquette Law Poll Guide: Justice Breyer data from U.S. Supreme Court surveys, 2019-22

Presented by Dr. Charles Franklin, director of the Marquette Law School Poll

MILWAUKEE —Even to the day it was reported that Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring from the U.S. Supreme Court, he consistently ranked as the justice whom the fewest Americans know.

In results released on Wednesday, Jan. 26, before word of Breyer’s plans circulated, the Marquette Law School Poll’s Supreme Court Survey found that only 21% of people nationwide said they knew enough about Breyer to have an opinion about him.

But, Breyer’s impending departure from the Court puts on the front burner the nomination and confirmation process for members of the Court, and the Marquette Law Poll surveys provide insight into public opinion about how those steps have been handled in recent years.

The Marquette Law Poll has examined nationwide opinion about the Supreme Court six times, beginning in 2019. This news release describes what has been found about opinions of Breyer and of the way court selections have been handled.

Justice Breyer Favorability

Justice Breyer has consistently been the least well-known justice among the general public, with fewer than 25% able to offer an opinion of him.

Table 1 shows the public’s ability to rate, and the favorability ratings, of all nine justices in the Jan. 10-21, 2022, survey. All numbers in tables are percentages.

Table 1: Recognition and favorability ratings of justices, January 2022

JusticeAble to rateNet favorabilityFavorableUnfavorable
Samuel Alito2661610
Amy Barrett46-22224
Stephen Breyer217147
Neil Gorsuch2911514
Elena Kagan2881810
Brett Kavanaugh53-112132
John Roberts38122513
Sonia Sotomayor50203515
Clarence Thomas5553025

The trend in favorability of Justice Breyer is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Percent of people nationwide who rated Justice Breyer, and their ratings, September 2019-January 2022

Poll dateAble to rateNet favorabilityFavorableUnfavorable
Sept. 3-13, 2019166115
Sept. 8-15, 2020186126
July 16-26, 20212412186
Jan, 10-21, 2022217147

“Should Justice Breyer retire?” from July 16-26, 2021

In the Marquette Law Poll’s Supreme Court survey of July 2021, a national sample of 1,010 adults were asked about the role of partisan control of the presidency and Senate in the timing of Supreme Court retirements.

A majority of the public thought that justices should not consider partisan control of the presidency and Senate when deciding the timing of their retirements. However, when given information that some Democrats were urging Justice Stephen Breyer to retire while there was a Democratic president and Democratic control of the Senate, more people supported a justice’s retiring with politics in mind, although it remained a minority overall.

When asked, “Do you think justices should consider the party in control of the White House and Senate as they decide when to retire?” 28% said justices should consider party control, while 72% said they should not consider this. This item was asked of a random half of all those surveyed at the time. The other random half of respondents was provided more information and context in the form of an alternative question: “Justice Stephen Breyer is 82 years old and the oldest member of the Court. He was nominated to the court in 1994 by President Clinton. Some Democrats are urging Breyer to retire now while there are a Democratic president and Senate. Do you think Justices should consider the party in control of the White House and Senate as they decide when to retire?” With this wording, 39% said justices should consider party control, while 60 percent said they should not.

The partisan information in the question boosted support for political timing of retirements across partisan identification among respondents, especially Democrats, as shown in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3: “Do you think Justices should consider the party in control of the White House and senate as they decide when to retire?,” July 2021

Party IDConsider party controlNot consider party control
Republican1684
Independent2674
Democrat4159

Table 4: “Justice Stephen Breyer is 82 years old and the oldest member of the Court. He was nominated to the court in 1994 by President Clinton. Some Democrats are urging Breyer to retire now while there are a Democratic president and senate. Do you think Justices should consider the party in control of the White House and senate as they decide when to retire?,” July 2021

Party IDConsider party controlNot consider party control
Republican2377
Independent3761
Democrat5842

Importance of the next nomination to the Supreme Court

Since 2019, the Marquette Law Poll’s national Supreme Court survey has asked how important the next Supreme Court appointment is to the respondent. There has been only a little change in public opinion during this time, although Democrats became somewhat more concerned, until that percentage dropped in November 2021.

Table 5: “How important is the choice of the next Supreme Court justice to you personally?,” September 2019-Nov. 2021

Poll datesVery importantSomewhat importantNot too importantNot at all important
Sept. 3-13, 20194731157
Sept. 8-15, 20204834134
July 16-26, 20215130144
Sept. 7-16, 20215231143
Nov. 1-10, 20214533175

Importance of the next nomination to the Supreme Court, by party identification

Democrats saw Court nominations as more important to them than did Republicans in 2020 and 2021, although the percentage of Democrats saying “very important” fell in November 2021.

Table 6: “How important is the choice of the next Supreme Court Justice to you personally?” by party identification, September 2019-Nov. 2021

Party IDPoll datesVery importantSomewhat importantNot too importantNot at all important
RepublicanSept. 3-13, 20195329153
RepublicanSept. 8-15, 20204833144
RepublicanJuly 16-26, 20214829158
RepublicanSept. 7-16, 20215135112
RepublicanNov. 1-10, 20214342133
IndependentSept. 3-13, 201938341611
IndependentSept. 8-15, 20203937168
IndependentJuly 16-26, 20214633155
IndependentSept. 7-16, 20214433185
IndependentNov. 1-10, 20214527208
DemocratSept. 3-13, 20195429124
DemocratSept. 8-15, 20205632101
DemocratJuly 16-26, 20216028111
DemocratSept. 7-16, 20216424111
DemocratNov. 1-10, 20214734172

Perception of the ideological orientation of the Court

Since 2019, the Marquette Law School Poll’s Supreme Court Survey has asked respondents to describe their perception of the Court’s ideological location. The percentage of the public characterizing the Court as conservative increased between September 2020 and July 2021, after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. (The September 2020 survey was completed before Ginsburg’s death.)

In 2019 and 2020, the wording was “very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal or very liberal.” This was changed in 2021-22 to “very conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate, somewhat liberal or very liberal.” Table 7 below collapses responses to three categories to reduce any effect due to the use of “somewhat” or not and to simplify exposition. Table 8 shows the uncollapsed results.

Table 7: “In general, would you describe each of the following as … ?… The US Supreme Court?,” September 2019-January 2022

Poll datesConservativeModerateLiberal
Sept. 3-13, 2019385011
Sept. 8-15, 2020355411
July 16-26, 202150427
Sept. 7-16, 202151409
Nov. 1-10, 202151399
Jan, 10-21, 2022543510

Table 8: “In general, would you describe each of the following as … ?… The US Supreme Court?,” September 2019-January 2022

Poll datesVery conservativeSomewhat conservativeModerateSomewhat liberalVery liberal
Sept. 3-13, 20195335093
Sept. 8-15, 20205305492
July 16-26, 202113374261
Sept. 7-16, 202116354072
Nov. 1-10, 202115353981
Jan. 10-21, 202217383582

Perception of the ideological orientation of the Court, by party identification

Perceptions of the ideological tilt of the Court are strongly related to partisanship, and partisan views have shifted over time. (As with the immediately previous pair of tables, Table 9 collapses responses to three categories to reduce any effect due to the use of “somewhat” or not and to simply exposition, while Table 10 shows the uncollapsed results. See the paragraph before Table 7 for a brief elaboration on the precise words given respondents as options in answering.)

Table 9: “In general, would you describe each of the following as … ?… The US Supreme Court?,” September 2019-January 2022

Party IDPoll datesConservativeModerateLiberal
RepublicanSept. 3-13, 2019275814
RepublicanSept. 8-15, 2020295715
RepublicanJuly 16-26, 202132599
RepublicanSept. 7-16, 2021354619
RepublicanNov. 1-10, 2021345412
RepublicanJan. 10-21, 2022335116
IndependentSept. 3-13, 201935559
IndependentSept. 8-15, 2020325711
IndependentJuly 16-26, 202149419
IndependentSept. 7-16, 202144497
IndependentNov. 1-10, 2021474012
IndependentJan. 10-21, 2022523711
DemocratSept. 3-13, 2019503811
DemocratSept. 8-15, 202045487
DemocratJuly 16-26, 202168293
DemocratSept. 7-16, 202174215
DemocratNov. 1-10, 202170273
DemocratJan. 10-21, 202276205

Table 10: “In general, would you describe each of the following as … ?… The US Supreme Court?,” September 2019-January 2022

Party IDPoll datesVery conservativeSomewhat conservativeModerateSomewhat liberalVery liberal
RepublicanSept. 3-13, 201942358113
RepublicanSept. 8-15, 202052457132
RepublicanJuly 16-26, 20217255981
RepublicanSept. 7-16, 202123346153
RepublicanNov. 1-10, 202172854102
RepublicanJan. 10-21, 202243051115
IndependentSept. 3-13, 20194315573
IndependentSept. 8-15, 20204285792
IndependentJuly 16-26, 20219404172
IndependentSept. 7-16, 202112324952
IndependentNov. 1-10, 2021123540112
IndependentJan. 10-21, 202211403792
DemocratSept. 3-13, 20198423892
DemocratSept. 8-15, 20207374852
DemocratJuly 16-26, 202125432930
DemocratSept. 7-16, 202134402141
DemocratNov. 1-10, 202127432721
DemocratJan. 10-21, 202235412050

Knowledge of the composition of the Supreme Court

A majority of the Court has been appointed by Republican presidents during all the Marquette Law School Poll surveys since 2019, but public awareness of this is far from universal. In six national surveys, no more than a third of respondents have said there is “definitely a majority appointed by Republican presidents,” while between 44 and 53% have said the majority was “probably” appointed by Republican presidents. Between 20 and 30% of respondents have said that Democratic presidents probably or definitely appointed the majority of the justices.

Table 11: “What is your guess as to whether a majority of the current US Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Democratic or Republican presidents?,” September 2019-January 2022

Poll datesDefinitely a majority appointed by Democratic presidentsProbably a majority appointed by Democratic presidentsProbably a majority appointed by Republican presidentsDefinitely a majority appointed by Republican presidents
Sept. 3-13, 20194235319
Sept. 8-15, 20204245121
July 16-26, 20214204530
Sept. 7-16, 20214224629
Nov. 1-10, 20215234428
Jan. 10-21, 20222214433

Knowledge of the composition of the Court by party identification

Republicans are less likely to say the majority of justices were definitely appointed by Republican presidents than are Democrats.

Table 12: “What is your guess as to whether a majority of the current US Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Democratic or Republican presidents?,” by party identification, September 2019-January 2022

Party IDPoll datesDefinitely a majority appointed by Democratic presidentsProbably a majority appointed by Democratic presidentsProbably a majority appointed by Republican presidentsDefinitely a majority appointed by Republican presidents
RepublicanSept. 3-13, 20194315014
RepublicanSept. 8-15, 20204314916
RepublicanJuly 16-26, 20216245316
RepublicanSept. 7-16, 20218245118
RepublicanNov. 1-10, 20216274621
RepublicanJan. 10-21, 20223284029
IndependentSept. 3-13, 20194235516
IndependentSept. 8-15, 20203245021
IndependentJuly 16-26, 20212234528
IndependentSept. 7-16, 20212245124
IndependentNov. 1-10, 20213215223
IndependentJan. 10-21, 20222214828
DemocratSept. 3-13, 20195165326
DemocratSept. 8-15, 20205175324
DemocratJuly 16-26, 20215133844
DemocratSept. 7-16, 20213183446
DemocratNov. 1-10, 20217223140
DemocratJan. 10-21, 20223154142

Justifications for voting against qualified nominee

The following items were asked in the Marquette Law School Poll’s Supreme Court survey conducted Sept. 8-15, 2020, before Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death on Sept. 18. The items were also asked in September 2019.

Table 13: “If a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court is qualified and has no ethical problems, would U.S. Senators be justified or not justified in voting against that nominee simply because of how they believe the Justice would decide cases on issues such as abortion, gun control, or affirmative action?,” September 2019 and September 2020

Poll datesJustified in voting against the nomineeNot justified in voting against the nomineeNA/Refused
Sept. 3-13, 201937612
Sept. 8-15, 202041581

Table 14: “If a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court is qualified and has no ethical problems, would U.S. Senators be justified or not justified in voting against that nominee simply because the Senator is from a different political party from the President who made the nomination?,” September 2019 and September 2020

Poll datesJustified in voting against the nomineeNot justified in voting against the nomineeNA/Refused
Sept. 3-13, 201919792
Sept. 8-15, 202021781

Justifications for voting to reject a nominee, by party identification

Neither Republicans nor Democrats were eager overall to support rejecting nominees solely on partisan grounds, with Democrats slightly more willing to reject a nominee on policy differences.

Table 15: “If a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court is qualified and has no ethical problems, would U.S. Senators be justified or not justified in voting against that nominee simply because of how they believe the Justice would decide cases on issues such as abortion, gun control, or affirmative action?,” by party identification, September 2019 and September 2020

Party IDPoll datesJustified in voting against the nomineeNot justified in voting against the nomineeNA/Refused
RepublicanSept. 3-13, 201936631
RepublicanSept. 8-15, 202039601
IndependentSept. 3-13, 201933661
IndependentSept. 8-15, 202036622
DemocratSept. 3-13, 201943552
DemocratSept. 8-15, 202047522

Table 16: “If a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court is qualified and has no ethical problems, would U.S. Senators be justified or not justified in voting against that nominee simply because the Senator is from a different political party from the president who made the nomination?,” by party identification, September 2019 and September 2020

Party IDPoll datesJustified in voting against the nomineeNot justified in voting against the nomineeNA/Refused
RepublicanSept. 3-13, 201920791
RepublicanSept. 8-15, 202021791
IndependentSept. 3-13, 201917812
IndependentSept. 8-15, 202017812
DemocratSept. 3-13, 201921763
DemocratSept. 8-15, 202024741

Should nominees declare their views on specific cases

There is a longstanding practice of nominees not discussing during the confirmation process specific cases that may come before the Court, or even past decisions. The public is evenly split on whether nominees should declare their positions, and there are modest partisan differences on this.

Table 17: “Should nominees to the Supreme Court be required to publicly declare how they would vote on controversial cases such as gun rights or abortion rights before they are confirmed to the Court?,” September 2020

Poll datesShould declare positionsShould not be required to declare positionsNA/Refused
Sept. 8-15, 202051481

Table 18: “Should nominees to the Supreme Court be required to publicly declare how they would vote on controversial cases such as gun rights or abortion rights before they are confirmed to the Court?,” by party identification, September 2020

Party identificationShould declare positionsShould not be required to declare positionsNA/Refused
Republican52471
Independent42562
Democrat58410

`

What justices should consider in reaching decisions

The following items were asked in the Marquette Law School Poll’s Supreme Court survey conducted Sept. 8-15, 2020, with a national sample of 1,523 adults.

Despite growing partisan division over appointments to the Court, four-in-five respondents (82%) said justices should ignore the positions of political parties when making decisions, while 18% said they should support one of the parties as part of their decisions.

Relative to that small group pointing to political parties, more respondents, 44%, said the justices should consider public opinion about a case in reaching their decisions, while 55% said they should not consider public opinion.

The practice of following previous opinions of the Court, or stare decisis, has played a significant role in recent confirmation hearings, often focusing on the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, but 81% said the justices should overturn previous decisions if a majority believes the case was wrongly decided, while 18% said the Court should follow the previous decision whenever possible.

On holding hearings on Court nominees

In polls in September 2019 and September 2020, respondents were asked about President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Court being blocked in 2016 and whether hearings should be held in 2020 if there was a vacancy. The 2020 survey was completed days before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Sept. 18, 2020.

Table 19: “In February 2016, following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that the Senate would not consider or hold hearings on any nominee President Obama might name during an election year. In March, Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. The Senate did not hold a hearing and the nomination expired in January 2017. Was not holding a hearing on the nomination the right thing or the wrong thing to do?,” September 2019 and September 2020

Poll datesRight thing to doWrong thing to doNA/Refused
Sept. 3-13, 201926731
Sept. 8-15, 202025731

Table 20: “If there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court during the 2020 presidential election year and President Trump nominates someone, what should the Senate do?,” September 2019 and September 2020

Poll datesHold hearingsNot hold hearingsNA/Refused
Sept. 3-13, 201969301
Sept. 8-15, 202067321

Nomination hearings by party identification

In 2019 and 2020, there were sharp partisan differences over the lack of hearings for Garland in 2016. There was not as much of a partisan divide over potential hearings in 2020 (this was asked before Ginsburg’s death).

Table 21: “In February 2016, following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that the Senate would not consider or hold hearings on any nominee President Obama might name during an election year. In March, Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. The Senate did not hold a hearing and the nomination expired in January 2017. Was not holding a hearing on the nomination the right thing or the wrong thing to do?,” by party identification, September 2019 and September 2020

Party IDPoll datesRight thing to doWrong thing to doNA/Refused
RepublicanSept. 3-13, 201945541
RepublicanSept. 8-15, 202045541
IndependentSept. 3-13, 201926731
IndependentSept. 8-15, 202020782
DemocratSept. 3-13, 201913870
DemocratSept. 8-15, 202015841

Table 22: “If there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court during the 2020 presidential election year and President Trump nominates someone, what should the Senate do?,” by party identification, September 2019 and September 2020

Party IDPoll datesHold hearingsNot hold hearingsNA/Refused
RepublicanSept. 3-13, 201972270
RepublicanSept. 8-15, 202068311
IndependentSept. 3-13, 201973261
IndependentSept. 8-15, 202071281
DemocratSept. 3-13, 201962370
DemocratSept. 8-15, 202063370

Perceptions of trends in Court rulings

While few citizens outside the legal profession read Supreme Court decisions, the public does develop an impression of the direction the Court takes over time. Across several topics, Table 19 shows how the public thinks the Court has expanded or reduced the rights of various groups over the past “15 years or so.”

Table 23: Perception of the expansion or reduction of rights for various groups, September 2021

Rights of…Expanded rightsReduced rightsNet expandedHas not changed much either way
LGTB people7786915
Campaign donors39152446
Minority voters38231539
Religious people and groups33211245
Gun owners2727045
Abortion seekers2345-2232

About the Marquette Law School Poll

The surveys were conducted with adults nationwide, with samples of 1,000 to 1,500 adults. Interviews were conducted in 2019 and 2020 by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), using its AmeriSpeak Panel, a national probability sample, with interviews conducted online. In 2021 and 2022, the survey was conducted using the SSRS Opinion Panel, a national probability sample with interviews conducted online. The detailed methodology statement, survey instrument, topline results, and crosstabs for each release are available at https://law.marquette.edu/poll/category/results-and-data/.

The polling dates, sample size, and margin of error for each survey are as follows:

Table 24: Poll dates, sample size, and margin of error for all Marquette Law School Poll nationwide Supreme Court Surveys, 2019-2022

Poll datesSample sizeMargin of error
Sept. 3-13, 201914233.5
Sept. 8-15, 202015233.3
July 16-26, 202110103.9
Sept. 7-16, 202114113.4
Nov. 1-10, 202110043.9
Jan. 10-21, 202210004.0