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 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
Justice
Able to rate
Net favorability
Favorable
Unfavorable
Samuel Alito
26
6
16
10
Amy Barrett
46
-2
22
24
Stephen Breyer
21
7
14
7
Neil Gorsuch
29
1
15
14
Elena Kagan
28
8
18
10
Brett Kavanaugh
53
-11
21
32
John Roberts
38
12
25
13
Sonia Sotomayor
50
20
35
15
Clarence Thomas
55
5
30
25
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
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 ID
Consider party control
Not consider party control
Republican
16
84
Independent
26
74
Democrat
41
59
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
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
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
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 dates
Conservative
Moderate
Liberal
Sept. 3-13, 2019
38
50
11
Sept. 8-15, 2020
35
54
11
July 16-26, 2021
50
42
7
Sept. 7-16, 2021
51
40
9
Nov. 1-10, 2021
51
39
9
Jan, 10-21, 2022
54
35
10
Table 8: “In general, would you describe each of the following as … ?… The US Supreme Court?,” September 2019-January 2022
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 ID
Poll dates
Conservative
Moderate
Liberal
Republican
Sept. 3-13, 2019
27
58
14
Republican
Sept. 8-15, 2020
29
57
15
Republican
July 16-26, 2021
32
59
9
Republican
Sept. 7-16, 2021
35
46
19
Republican
Nov. 1-10, 2021
34
54
12
Republican
Jan. 10-21, 2022
33
51
16
Independent
Sept. 3-13, 2019
35
55
9
Independent
Sept. 8-15, 2020
32
57
11
Independent
July 16-26, 2021
49
41
9
Independent
Sept. 7-16, 2021
44
49
7
Independent
Nov. 1-10, 2021
47
40
12
Independent
Jan. 10-21, 2022
52
37
11
Democrat
Sept. 3-13, 2019
50
38
11
Democrat
Sept. 8-15, 2020
45
48
7
Democrat
July 16-26, 2021
68
29
3
Democrat
Sept. 7-16, 2021
74
21
5
Democrat
Nov. 1-10, 2021
70
27
3
Democrat
Jan. 10-21, 2022
76
20
5
Table 10: “In general, would you describe each of the following as … ?… The US Supreme Court?,” September 2019-January 2022
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 dates
Definitely a majority appointed by Democratic presidents
Probably a majority appointed by Democratic presidents
Probably a majority appointed by Republican presidents
Definitely a majority appointed by Republican presidents
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 ID
Poll dates
Definitely a majority appointed by Democratic presidents
Probably a majority appointed by Democratic presidents
Probably a majority appointed by Republican presidents
Definitely a majority appointed by Republican presidents
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 dates
Justified in voting against the nominee
Not justified in voting against the nominee
NA/Refused
Sept. 3-13, 2019
37
61
2
Sept. 8-15, 2020
41
58
1
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
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 ID
Poll dates
Justified in voting against the nominee
Not justified in voting against the nominee
NA/Refused
Republican
Sept. 3-13, 2019
36
63
1
Republican
Sept. 8-15, 2020
39
60
1
Independent
Sept. 3-13, 2019
33
66
1
Independent
Sept. 8-15, 2020
36
62
2
Democrat
Sept. 3-13, 2019
43
55
2
Democrat
Sept. 8-15, 2020
47
52
2
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
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 dates
Should declare positions
Should not be required to declare positions
NA/Refused
Sept. 8-15, 2020
51
48
1
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
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.
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 dates
Right thing to do
Wrong thing to do
NA/Refused
Sept. 3-13, 2019
26
73
1
Sept. 8-15, 2020
25
73
1
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
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 ID
Poll dates
Right thing to do
Wrong thing to do
NA/Refused
Republican
Sept. 3-13, 2019
45
54
1
Republican
Sept. 8-15, 2020
45
54
1
Independent
Sept. 3-13, 2019
26
73
1
Independent
Sept. 8-15, 2020
20
78
2
Democrat
Sept. 3-13, 2019
13
87
0
Democrat
Sept. 8-15, 2020
15
84
1
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
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 rights
Reduced rights
Net expanded
Has not changed much either way
LGTB people
77
8
69
15
Campaign donors
39
15
24
46
Minority voters
38
23
15
39
Religious people and groups
33
21
12
45
Gun owners
27
27
0
45
Abortion seekers
23
45
-22
32
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