MILWAUKEE — A Marquette Law School
Poll of voters nationwide provides wide-ranging measures of public
understanding and opinion of the United States Supreme Court. Among the
findings: A majority of respondents have more confidence in the Court than in
other parts of the federal government; few see the Court as taking extremely
liberal or extremely conservative positions, although views of the Court differ
by partisanship; and a majority of the public opposes increasing the number of
justices even as a majority supports limiting how long justices may serve.
Other findings include that while
there is broad support for the Court as a whole, political conservatives are
more favorable to the current make-up and decisions of the Court than liberals
are. And majorities support some decisions or potential decisions involving
abortion, gay rights, and banning semi-automatic rifles that are generally
labeled liberal; at the same time, majorities favor decisions of the Court, including
a right to possess firearms and allowance of public funds to support students
in religious schools, that are generally considered conservative.
Awareness of the individual
justices remains fairly low. Only 34 percent of those polled offered an opinion
on at least five of the nine justices, and 28 percent had no opinion on any of
them.
A majority of those polled said
they want decisions to be nonpartisan and to be generally “fair.” A majority
(57 percent) also said that they support the Court’s using “evolving”
interpretations of the U.S. Constitution rather than interpretations based solely
on the intent of the Constitution’s framers.
The
survey was conducted Sept. 3-13, 2019; 1,423 adults were interviewed
nationwide, with a margin of error of +/-3.6 percentage points.
Confidence in the Court and other
institutions
Confidence
in the Supreme Court is higher than that for other branches of the federal
government and some other institutions. Confidence in the respondent’s state
supreme court ranks second highest. Confidence in the presidency shows some
polarization, with more very-low and very-high ratings, while Congress receives
the lowest confidence rating.
Here is a list of institutions in American society.
How much confidence do you have in each one?
|
None
|
Very little
|
Some
|
Quite a lot
|
A great deal
|
U.S. Supreme
Court
|
4
|
16
|
43
|
29
|
8
|
State Supreme
Court
|
5
|
17
|
46
|
27
|
5
|
Presidency
|
25
|
22
|
25
|
15
|
13
|
Criminal
Justice System
|
8
|
26
|
46
|
17
|
3
|
Congress
|
13
|
38
|
40
|
8
|
2
|
When
respondents are asked to rank the three branches of the federal government, the
Supreme Court inspires the most confidence by a substantial margin. This
finding, consistent with much other public opinion research, points to the
strength of the Court in the public mind in relation to the other branches of
the federal government.
Of the three branches of U.S. government, which one
do you trust the most?
Response
|
Percent
|
The U.S.
Supreme Court (the judicial branch)
|
57
|
The U.S.
Congress (the legislative branch)
|
22
|
The
Presidency (the executive branch)
|
21
|
Those who
are more aware of the U.S. Supreme Court generally express greater confidence
in it. Familiarity breeds support in the case of the Court. General attention
to politics is associated with greater confidence. (In this table, “none” and
“very little” confidence are combined as “low confidence,” and “quite a lot”
and “a great deal” are combined as “high” confidence.)
Confidence in the Court by attention to politics
|
Low Confidence
|
Medium Confidence
|
High Confidence
|
Low Attention
|
32
|
48
|
20
|
Medium
Attention
|
17
|
46
|
37
|
High
Attention
|
18
|
36
|
46
|
Partisanship
and ideology are related to confidence in the Court. Independents have lower
confidence than partisans, while Republicans have higher confidence than
Democrats.
Confidence in the Court by party identification
|
Low
|
Medium
|
High
|
Republican
|
14
|
32
|
54
|
Lean
Republican
|
15
|
42
|
43
|
Independent
|
31
|
46
|
23
|
Lean Democrat
|
23
|
56
|
21
|
Democrat
|
21
|
44
|
34
|
High
confidence in the Court is also associated with conservative ideology, whereas
it is not as high among those with very liberal beliefs.
Confidence in the Court by liberal-conservative
ideology
|
Low
|
Medium
|
High
|
Very
Conservative
|
13
|
36
|
52
|
Conservative
|
17
|
37
|
46
|
Moderate
|
21
|
46
|
34
|
Liberal
|
21
|
46
|
33
|
Very Liberal
|
36
|
34
|
31
|
Perceptions of the Supreme Court as
moderate to conservative
The poll finds that, despite partisan battles over the U.S.
Supreme Court in recent decades, the largest group, 50 percent, considers the
Court to occupy a “moderate” position on the liberal-conservative continuum.
Considerably more, 39 percent, consider the Court conservative than the 12
percent who consider it liberal. Few respondents see the Court as extreme in
either ideological direction, with only 9 percent combined saying that it is
either very conservative or very liberal.
In general, would you describe the U.S. Supreme
Court as very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal or very liberal?
Response
|
Percent
|
Very
conservative
|
6
|
Conservative
|
33
|
Moderate
|
50
|
Liberal
|
9
|
Very liberal
|
3
|
Those who
pay the most attention to politics are more likely to see the Court as
conservative or very conservative, with 41 percent saying that it is moderate.
For the less attentive, majorities place the Court at the middle of the
ideological scale.
Perceived ideology of the Court by attention to
politics
|
Very conservative
|
Conservative
|
Moderate
|
Liberal
|
Very liberal
|
Low
|
3
|
24
|
62
|
7
|
5
|
Medium
|
5
|
29
|
55
|
10
|
1
|
High
|
7
|
41
|
41
|
8
|
3
|
A
majority of Democrats and independents who lean Democratic see the Court as
conservative or very conservative. Independents and Republicans are much more
likely to call the Court moderate, with about 60 percent of each of those two groups
placing the Court at the middle on ideology. None of the partisan categories
sees an especially extreme court, showing that the Court is seen as being to
the middle, with the public view tilting a bit more one way or the other
depending on attention to politics or partisanship.
Perceived ideology of the Court by party
identification
|
Very conservative
|
Conservative
|
Moderate
|
Liberal
|
Very liberal
|
Republican
|
4
|
23
|
58
|
11
|
3
|
Lean
Republican
|
2
|
27
|
61
|
9
|
2
|
Independent
|
2
|
23
|
64
|
6
|
5
|
Lean Democrat
|
10
|
50
|
35
|
5
|
0
|
Democrat
|
8
|
42
|
38
|
9
|
2
|
While
most people think the next appointment to the Court is important, one in five
think that it is not too important or not at all important (combined as “not
important” in tables below).
Importance of next court appointment
Response
|
Percent
|
Not important
|
22
|
Somewhat
|
31
|
Very
important
|
47
|
Those who
pay the most attention to politics in general are much more likely to say the
next appointment to the Court is very important.
Importance of next court appointment by attention to
politics
|
Not important
|
Somewhat
|
Very important
|
Low
|
50
|
32
|
18
|
Medium
|
22
|
41
|
37
|
High
|
7
|
23
|
70
|
Institutional
change
There has
been public discussion of changing the institutional structure of the Court. A
majority oppose increasing the number of justices, although more than one in
three somewhat favor an increase and 8 percent strongly favor a change.
[Increase the number of justices on the U.S. Supreme
Court] How much do you favor or oppose the following proposals affecting the
Supreme Court?
Response
|
Percent
|
Strongly
favor
|
8
|
Favor
|
35
|
Oppose
|
40
|
Strongly
oppose
|
17
|
There is
majority support for setting a fixed term for justices to serve on the Court,
replacing the current life tenure.
[Have judges serve a fixed term on the court rather
than serving life terms] How much do you favor or oppose the following
proposals affecting the Supreme Court?
Response
|
Percent
|
Strongly
favor
|
34
|
Favor
|
38
|
Oppose
|
20
|
Strongly
oppose
|
8
|
Restricting
the power of judicial review is supported by 38 percent while 62 percent oppose
this.
[Limit the ability of the Supreme Court to review
and set aside acts of Congress as unconstitutional] How much do you favor or
oppose the following proposals affecting the Supreme Court?
Response
|
Percent
|
Strongly
favor
|
8
|
Favor
|
30
|
Oppose
|
43
|
Strongly
oppose
|
19
|
Partisanship
plays a role in willingness to make changes to the number of justices, with
Democrats more supportive than Republicans, although even among strong
Democrats support for expansion is evenly divided.
Favor expanding the Court by party identification
|
Strongly favor
|
Favor
|
Oppose
|
Strongly oppose
|
Republican
|
3
|
28
|
42
|
27
|
Lean
Republican
|
4
|
31
|
35
|
30
|
Independent
|
14
|
40
|
33
|
14
|
Lean Democrat
|
8
|
35
|
48
|
9
|
Democrat
|
10
|
40
|
40
|
10
|
Support
for fixed terms is independent of partisanship, with similar support across all
party groups.
Favor fixed terms for justices by party identification
|
Strongly favor
|
Favor
|
Oppose
|
Strongly oppose
|
Republican
|
34
|
35
|
22
|
8
|
Lean
Republican
|
34
|
35
|
20
|
11
|
Independent
|
32
|
40
|
19
|
9
|
Lean Democrat
|
33
|
38
|
24
|
5
|
Democrat
|
34
|
41
|
19
|
6
|
There are
modest differences between partisans in support for limiting judicial review,
with Republicans a little more supportive than Democrats.
Favor limiting judicial review by party
identification
|
Strongly favor
|
Favor
|
Oppose
|
Strongly oppose
|
Republican
|
13
|
32
|
38
|
17
|
Lean
Republican
|
6
|
21
|
49
|
24
|
Independent
|
11
|
34
|
37
|
18
|
Lean Democrat
|
5
|
23
|
51
|
21
|
Democrat
|
4
|
33
|
44
|
19
|
Opposition
to nominees
The
confirmation of nominees to both the Supreme Court and lower federal courts has
grown far more contentious over the past several decades. During this period,
opposition based on expected policy differences and based on partisanship,
which once was rare, has become common.
While
partisan and policy differences have come to dominate elite debate over
nominations, substantial majorities of the public say that these are not
sufficient reasons to reject an otherwise qualified nominee.
Fewer
than 40 percent say that a senator would be justified in rejecting an otherwise
qualified nominee, with no ethical problems, based on how the senator believes
the nominee would decide cases. More than 60 percent say that this is not a
justification for rejecting a nominee.
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?
Response
|
Percent
|
Justified
|
38
|
Not justified
|
62
|
Partisan objections to a nominee are seen as even
less justified, with more than 80 percent saying that
rejecting a qualified nominee simply because of party is not justified, while
19 percent say that this is reason enough for a vote against confirmation.
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?
Response
|
Percent
|
Justified
|
19
|
Not justified
|
81
|
Rejection
due to partisan (i.e., party) differences is equally disapproved across party
identification, ideology, and strength of party identification or ideology.
While party and policy are inextricably linked, the public does not support
partisan differences as the sole basis of confirming or rejecting court
nominees.
Rejecting
nominees based on how they are believed likely to rule on cases is somewhat
more dependent on the respondent’s party and ideology. While Democratic and
Republican differences are not statistically significant, independents are
significantly more likely to say that rejection based on policy differences is
not justified.
Reject nominee over policy by party identification
|
Justified
|
Not justified
|
Republican
|
37
|
63
|
Lean
Republican
|
34
|
66
|
Independent
|
26
|
74
|
Lean Democrat
|
43
|
57
|
Democrat
|
44
|
56
|
Those who
say that the next appointment is important are more likely to say that
rejecting a nominee on policy grounds is justified. This does not carry over to
rejection on partisan grounds, however, where there are no significant
differences among respondents based on the importance that they attach to the
next appointment. Even among those who rate the next appointment as very
important, less than half say that rejection of a nominee is justified on
policy grounds, and only one in five say so on party grounds.
Rejecting nominee over policy by importance of next
appointment
|
Justified
|
Not justified
|
Not important
|
29
|
71
|
Somewhat
|
38
|
62
|
Very
important
|
42
|
58
|
Rejecting nominee over party by importance of next
appointment
|
Justified
|
Not justified
|
Not important
|
15
|
85
|
Somewhat
|
20
|
80
|
Very
important
|
21
|
79
|
Those who
are most attentive to politics are also more willing to justify rejection of a
nominee on policy grounds, but not willing to do so over partisan differences.
As with the importance assigned to the next nominee, more than half of those
who pay the most attention to politics say that rejecting a qualified nominee
on policy grounds is not justified, and more than 80 percent say this with
respect to partisan grounds.
Rejecting nominee over policy by attention to
politics
|
Justified
|
Not justified
|
Low
|
29
|
71
|
Medium
|
38
|
62
|
High
|
42
|
58
|
Rejecting nominee over party by attention to
politics
|
Justified
|
Not justified
|
Low
|
20
|
80
|
Medium
|
22
|
78
|
High
|
17
|
83
|
Confirmations during an election
year
The
decision by Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader, in 2016 not
to hold hearings on any nominee by President Barack Obama to replace the late
Justice Antonin Scalia was controversial. For the mass public this action was,
in retrospect at least, not the right thing to do.
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?
Response
|
Percent
|
Right thing
to do
|
27
|
Wrong thing
to do
|
73
|
The
possibility of a nomination during the 2020 election year faces the question of
consistency with the 2016 precedent. Most respondents believe that a nomination
in 2020 should result in hearings. However, nearly one in three now believe
that hearings should not be held in an election year.
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?
Response
|
Percent
|
Hold hearings
|
69
|
Not hold
hearings
|
31
|
Views of
the lack of hearings in 2016 are strongly related to partisanship, with
Republicans more likely than others to say that the refusal to consider a
nomination was the right thing to do. But, even among Republicans, a majority
say that it was the wrong decision, as do nearly nine in 10 Democrats.
No confirmation hearings in 2016, by party
identification
|
Right thing to do
|
Wrong thing to do
|
Republican
|
45
|
55
|
Lean
Republican
|
34
|
66
|
Independent
|
30
|
70
|
Lean Democrat
|
13
|
87
|
Democrat
|
13
|
87
|
As for
holding hearings if a 2020 vacancy were to occur, Republicans strongly support
hearings in the presidential election year, while nearly four in 10 Democrats
say that no hearings should occur.
Hold confirmation hearings in 2020 by party
identification
|
Hold hearings
|
Not hold hearings
|
Republican
|
72
|
28
|
Lean
Republican
|
81
|
19
|
Independent
|
76
|
24
|
Lean Democrat
|
62
|
38
|
Democrat
|
63
|
37
|
Preferences on past and potential
decisions
We asked
about a total of 14 cases. We described seven past decisions and seven possible
future decisions. In the latter group, we based some descriptions on actual
cases, while others were hypothetical, and we did not indicate whether such a
description was based on an actual as opposed to hypothetical case. Our choice
of topics reflects recent and current cases that have received widespread news
coverage. In all cases, we adopted common journalistic language to describe the
outcome or consequences of decisions, rather than attempting a fuller syllabus
for each case. With the exception of Roe
v. Wade, we did not
identify cases by name.
Opinion
of past cases
Past
decisions describe rulings on same-sex marriage, use of race in college
admissions, a ban on travel to the United States from Muslim-majority
countries, coverage of birth control in employee health plans, campaign
spending by corporations and unions, partisan gerrymandering, and an
individual’s right to possess a firearm.
Public
views of these actual or possible decisions vary. In some cases, a majority
favor past decisions, while in others the majority oppose the decisions. With
potential future decisions, there are some possible outcomes that receive more
popular support than others.
The full
question wording and the short description used in the table below follow.
- Past decisions:
“How much do you favor or oppose the following recent Supreme Court decisions?”
- Corporate political spending: “Decided that corporations and unions can spend
unlimited amounts of money to directly support or oppose political candidates.”
- Race in admissions: “Decided colleges can use race as one factor in
deciding which applicants to admit.”
- Partisan gerrymanders: “Decided that federal courts lack the
constitutional authority to rule on cases involving legislative and
congressional district boundaries designed to favor one political party (known
as gerrymanders).”
- Exclude birth control coverage: “Decided that privately held, for-profit companies
may choose not to pay for coverage of prescription birth control in their
workers’ health plans if the company’s owner has religious objections.”
- Upheld travel ban: “Upheld President Donald Trump’s travel ban against
citizens of five Muslim-majority countries.”
- Same-sex marriage: “Established a constitutional right for same-sex
couples to marry.”
- Right to firearms: “The Second Amendment reads: ‘A well regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’ In 2008, the court ruled
that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm
unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally
lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
Public views of past decisions.
|
Strongly Oppose
|
Oppose
|
Favor
|
Strongly Favor
|
Don’t know
|
Corporate
political spending
|
53
|
22
|
11
|
3
|
10
|
Race in
admissions
|
57
|
21
|
11
|
4
|
7
|
Partisan
gerrymanders
|
26
|
19
|
15
|
11
|
29
|
Exclude birth
control coverage
|
44
|
19
|
13
|
14
|
10
|
Upheld travel
ban
|
33
|
16
|
19
|
23
|
10
|
Same-sex
marriage
|
23
|
13
|
20
|
36
|
9
|
Right to
firearm
|
11
|
13
|
27
|
40
|
8
|
Possible
future decisions
Some of
the future decisions are taken from cases currently on the Court’s docket while
others are hypothetical. These questions asked how much the respondent would
favor or oppose the outcome as described. Possible decisions included
overturning Roe v. Wade; striking down the Affordable Care Act; allowing
business owners to deny services to gay people for religious reasons; allowing
the Trump administration to end the DACA program; extending protections against
employment discrimination to cover gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals;
allowing public funds that support students attending private schools to also
include those attending religious schools; and deciding that a ban on
semi-automatic rifles violates the Second Amendment. The full question wording
and the short description used in the table below follows.
- Possible future
decisions: “How much do you favor or oppose the following possible Supreme
Court decisions?”
- Overturn Roe v. Wade: “Overturn Roe versus Wade, thus striking down the
1973 decision that made abortion legal in all 50 states.”
- End DACA: “Decide the administration can end the DACA program
that allows young people who were brought to the United States illegally as
children to register and avoid immediate deportation.”
- Deny service to gay people: “Decide that a business owner’s religious beliefs or
free speech rights can justify refusing some services to gay people.”
- Public funds for religious school
students: “Decide that a program that financially supports
students attending private schools may also include religious schools without
violating the constitution.”
- Strike down ACA: “Strike down the 2010 health care reform law, also
called Obamacare, by declaring it unconstitutional.”
- Second Amendment prohibits semi-automatic
rifle ban: “Decide that a ban on semi-automatic rifles
violates the Second Amendment and thus is unconstitutional.”
- Employment discrimination includes LGBTQ
people: “Decide that laws prohibiting employment
discrimination on the basis of sex also apply to discrimination based on sexual
orientation of gay, lesbian, or transgender individuals.”
Public views of possible future decisions.
|
Strongly Oppose
|
Oppose
|
Favor
|
Strongly Favor
|
Don’t know
|
Overturn Roe
v. Wade
|
47
|
14
|
13
|
16
|
9
|
End DACA
|
37
|
16
|
20
|
17
|
9
|
Deny service
to gay people
|
40
|
17
|
15
|
19
|
9
|
Public funds
for religious school students
|
17
|
16
|
31
|
22
|
14
|
Strike down
ACA
|
35
|
17
|
15
|
23
|
10
|
Second
Amendment prohibits semi-automatic rifle ban
|
36
|
17
|
14
|
25
|
8
|
Employment
discrimination includes LGBTQ
|
18
|
12
|
22
|
39
|
9
|
Awareness
and perception of justices
We asked
respondents if they had never heard of each justice, had heard of each justice
but didn’t have an opinion, and if they were aware whether they had a favorable
or unfavorable opinion.
There is
considerable variation in awareness of the justices, from 84 percent unable to
rate Justice Stephen Breyer to 42 percent for Justice Brett Kavanaugh and 41
percent for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The
awareness and favorability ratings of the justices are shown in the table
below.
Some justices of the Supreme Court are better known
than others. For each of these names, have you never heard of them, heard of
them but don’t know enough to have an opinion of them, have a favorable
opinion, or have an unfavorable opinion?
|
Unfavorable
|
Unable to rate
|
Favorable
|
Breyer
|
5
|
84
|
11
|
Kagan
|
7
|
78
|
15
|
Alito
|
8
|
78
|
15
|
Gorsuch
|
12
|
70
|
18
|
Roberts
|
9
|
66
|
25
|
Sotomayor
|
11
|
59
|
30
|
Thomas
|
23
|
49
|
28
|
Kavanaugh
|
32
|
42
|
26
|
Ginsburg
|
17
|
41
|
41
|
Just over
one in four respondents lacked enough information to rate even a single justice,
with an additional 11 percent able to rate only one justice. Just over a third
of respondents said that they were able to rate a majority of the justices.
Number of justices able to rate, full scale
Response
|
Percent
|
0
|
28
|
1
|
11
|
2
|
9
|
3
|
9
|
4
|
9
|
5
|
8
|
6
|
8
|
7
|
6
|
8
|
4
|
9
|
8
|
Factual
knowledge
We
measure knowledge of the Court and the Constitution through four items,
assessing understanding of judicial review, the authority of the Court over the
president, the location of the Bill of Rights within the Constitution, and
which party’s presidents have appointed a majority of the current Court.
Does the Supreme Court have the power to review laws
passed by Congress and to declare them invalid if they conflict with the
Constitution?
Response
|
Percent
|
Yes, the
Supreme Court has this power
|
86
|
No, the
Supreme Court does not have this power
|
14
|
If the Supreme Court rules against the president in
a case, does the president have the power to ignore that ruling, or is the
president required to do as the ruling says?
Response
|
Percent
|
The president
has the power to ignore the ruling
|
23
|
The president
is required to do as the ruling says
|
77
|
Which part of the Constitution is called the ‘Bill
of Rights’?
Response
|
Percent
|
Article I
|
9
|
Article II
|
3
|
Article III
|
2
|
Amendments
1-10
|
52
|
Amendments
13-15
|
1
|
I don’t know
|
33
|
What is your guess as to whether a majority of the
current U.S. Supreme Court justices were appointed by Democratic or Republican
presidents?
Response
|
Percent
|
Definitely
Democratic Majority
|
4
|
Probably Democratic
Majority
|
23
|
Probably
Republican Majority
|
54
|
Definitely
Republican Majority
|
19
|
(The
correct answer is Republican. Five were appointed by Republican presidents
and four by Democratic presidents.)
We can
sum up the correct answers to create a knowledge score for each respondent,
ranging from zero to four correct answers.
Knowledge of factual information, full scale
Response
|
Percent
|
0
|
2
|
1
|
6
|
2
|
25
|
3
|
39
|
4
|
29
|
How the
public thinks justices decide and how it thinks they should decide
While
some see the Court as driven by politics, a near two-to-one majority say that
justices base their decisions primarily on the law.
In general, what most often motivates Supreme Court
justices’ decisions?
Response
|
Percent
|
Mainly
politics
|
36
|
Mainly the
law
|
64
|
A
majority say that justices should base their decisions on an evolving meaning
of the Constitution rather than on what the Constitution was originally
understood to mean.
How should Supreme Court justices base their
decisions? On their interpretations of what the U.S. Constitution was
understood to mean when it was originally written or on the Constitution as a
document whose meaning may have evolved over time?
Response
|
Percent
|
Original
meaning
|
43
|
Evolving
meaning
|
57
|
A
majority of the public believes that a decision should produce a “fair” outcome
rather than strictly follow the law if that would produce an unfair outcome.
Which is more important, a decision that leads to a
fair outcome or one that follows the law, even if seemingly unfair?
Response
|
Percent
|
That leads to
a fair outcome
|
56
|
That follows
the law, even if seemingly unfair
|
44
|
In
thinking about the qualities important in a justice, the public puts greater
emphasis on good judgment and empathy, followed by respect for existing decisions.
Following a judicial philosophy was deemed least important. (In this table “not
at all important” and “not very important” are combined as “unimportant.”)
- “How important
is it for a good Supreme Court justice to have each of these characteristics?”
- “Be able to
empathize with ordinary people; that is, to be able to understand how the law
hurts or helps the people”
- “Exercise good
judgment and wisdom in the application of the law rather than only strict
technical compliance with the law as it is written”
- “Respect for
existing Supreme Court decisions”
- “Interpret the
law according to the justice’s judicial philosophy, whether liberal or
conservative”
How important is it for a good Supreme Court justice
to have each of these characteristics?
|
Unimportant
|
Somewhat
|
Very
|
Empathy
|
10
|
21
|
69
|
Good judgment
|
10
|
25
|
65
|
Respect
precedent
|
12
|
44
|
44
|
Judicial
philosophy
|
26
|
31
|
43
|
The Court
and opinions of the president
Appointments
to the Supreme Court emerged as an important element in the 2016 presidential
campaign when then-candidate Donald Trump released a list of names from which
he pledged to select nominees to the Court. With two subsequent appointments to
the Court, this issue has remained salient as a congressional issue as well.
Asked how
much they approve of President Trump’s handling of Supreme Court appointments,
43 percent approve, and 57 percent disapprove.
[Appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court] How much do
you approve or disapprove of the way Trump is handling the following issues?
Response
|
Percent
|
Strongly
approve
|
22
|
Somewhat
approve
|
21
|
Somewhat
disapprove
|
19
|
Strongly
disapprove
|
38
|
For
comparison, 40 percent approve of President Trump’s handling of his job
overall, while 60 percent disapprove, a slightly worse overall approval rating
than for his handling of court nominations.
Overall, how much do you approve or disapprove of
the way Trump is handling his job as president?
Response
|
Percent
|
Strongly
approve
|
20
|
Somewhat
approve
|
20
|
Somewhat
disapprove
|
14
|
Strongly
disapprove
|
46
|
Asked
about their confidence in a future Trump nominee, 32 percent say they have a
great deal or quite a lot of confidence, 13 percent have some, while 56 percent
say they have little or no confidence that the next nominee will be the right
kind of person for the Court.
If there is another opening on the Supreme Court,
how much confidence do you have that President Donald Trump will select the
right kind of person to sit on the Supreme Court?
Response
|
Percent
|
A great deal
of confidence
|
19
|
Quite a lot
of confidence
|
13
|
Some
confidence
|
13
|
Very little
confidence
|
19
|
None at all
|
37
|
Views of
presidential performance overall and of judicial matters are, unsurprisingly,
closely tied to partisanship, with nearly identical correlations of 0.74 and
0.73, respectively.
Approval of Trump’s handling of nominations to the
Supreme Court by party identification
|
Strongly approve
|
Somewhat approve
|
Somewhat disapprove
|
Strongly disapprove
|
Republican
|
59
|
30
|
7
|
4
|
Lean Republican
|
39
|
41
|
12
|
8
|
Independent
|
7
|
28
|
31
|
34
|
Lean Democrat
|
1
|
5
|
31
|
63
|
Democrat
|
2
|
7
|
22
|
69
|
A
multivariate model of overall Trump job approval, including the effects of
partisanship and ideology, finds that approval of court nominations has a
strong and statistically significant relationship with overall job approval.
The favorability rating of Justice Kavanaugh is also a statistically
significant predictor of job approval, while the rating of Trump’s other
appointee, Justice Gorsuch, is not statistically significant.
Opinion
on handling of nominations also has statistically significant effects on vote
choice for president in 2020. A multivariate model that predicts vote if the
final election is between President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden
and if the final election is between Trump and Sen. Elizabeth Warren results in
similar conclusions. The model, which includes partisanship, ideology, and
overall job approval, finds that there is an additional statistically
significant effect of approval of court nominations, and of favorability to
Kavanaugh, with no statistically significant effect for favorability to
Gorsuch.
While
other factors such as party, ideology, and overall performance are powerful
predictors of vote choice, the statistical model supports the idea that court
appointments are an additional factor in evaluations of presidential
performance and in vote choice.
A more
detailed analysis of the survey findings is available at https://law.marquette.edu/poll/category/results-and-data/
About the Marquette Law School Poll
The survey was conducted Sept. 3-13, 2019,
interviewing 1,423 adults nationwide, with a margin of error of +/-3.6
percentage points. Interviews were
conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) using its AmeriSpeak
Panel, a national probability sample, with interviews conducted online. The
detailed methodology statement, complete survey instrument, topline results,
and crosstabs are available at https://law.marquette.edu/poll/category/results-and-data/