{"id":1930,"date":"2019-10-21T09:45:20","date_gmt":"2019-10-21T14:45:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/poll\/?p=1930"},"modified":"2019-10-21T10:05:12","modified_gmt":"2019-10-21T15:05:12","slug":"supremecourt2019","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/poll\/2019\/10\/21\/supremecourt2019\/","title":{"rendered":"New nationwide Marquette Law School Poll finds confidence in U.S. Supreme Court overall, though more pronounced among conservatives"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>MILWAUKEE \u2014 A Marquette Law School\nPoll of voters nationwide provides wide-ranging measures of public\nunderstanding and opinion of the United States Supreme Court. Among the\nfindings: A majority of respondents have more confidence in the Court than in\nother parts of the federal government; few see the Court as taking extremely\nliberal or extremely conservative positions, although views of the Court differ\nby partisanship; and a majority of the public opposes increasing the number of\njustices even as a majority supports limiting how long justices may serve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Other findings include that while\nthere is broad support for the Court as a whole, political conservatives are\nmore favorable to the current make-up and decisions of the Court than liberals\nare. And majorities support some decisions or potential decisions involving\nabortion, gay rights, and banning semi-automatic rifles that are generally\nlabeled liberal; at the same time, majorities favor decisions of the Court, including\na right to possess firearms and allowance of public funds to support students\nin religious schools, that are generally considered conservative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Awareness of the individual\njustices remains fairly low. Only 34 percent of those polled offered an opinion\non at least five of the nine justices, and 28 percent had no opinion on any of\nthem. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A majority of those polled said\nthey want decisions to be nonpartisan and to be generally \u201cfair.\u201d A majority\n(57 percent) also said that they support the Court\u2019s using \u201cevolving\u201d\ninterpretations of the U.S. Constitution rather than interpretations based solely\non the intent of the Constitution\u2019s framers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The\nsurvey was conducted Sept. 3-13, 2019; 1,423 adults were interviewed\nnationwide, with a margin of error of +\/-3.6 percentage points.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Confidence in the Court and other\ninstitutions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Confidence\nin the Supreme Court is higher than that for other branches of the federal\ngovernment and some other institutions. Confidence in the respondent\u2019s state\nsupreme court ranks second highest. Confidence in the presidency shows some\npolarization, with more very-low and very-high ratings, while Congress receives\nthe lowest confidence rating.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Here is a list of institutions in American society.\nHow much confidence do you have in each one?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>None<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Very little<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Some<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Quite a lot<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>A great deal<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  U.S. Supreme\n  Court\n  <\/td><td>\n  4\n  <\/td><td>\n  16\n  <\/td><td>\n  43\n  <\/td><td>\n  29\n  <\/td><td>\n  8\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  State Supreme\n  Court\n  <\/td><td>\n  5\n  <\/td><td>\n  17\n  <\/td><td>\n  46\n  <\/td><td>\n  27\n  <\/td><td>\n  5\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Presidency\n  <\/td><td>\n  25\n  <\/td><td>\n  22\n  <\/td><td>\n  25\n  <\/td><td>\n  15\n  <\/td><td>\n  13\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Criminal\n  Justice System\n  <\/td><td>\n  8\n  <\/td><td>\n  26\n  <\/td><td>\n  46\n  <\/td><td>\n  17\n  <\/td><td>\n  3\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Congress\n  <\/td><td>\n  13\n  <\/td><td>\n  38\n  <\/td><td>\n  40\n  <\/td><td>\n  8\n  <\/td><td>\n  2\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>When\nrespondents are asked to rank the three branches of the federal government, the\nSupreme Court inspires the most confidence by a substantial margin. This\nfinding, consistent with much other public opinion research, points to the\nstrength of the Court in the public mind in relation to the other branches of\nthe federal government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Of the three branches of U.S. government, which one\ndo you trust the most?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>Response<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Percent<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  The U.S.\n  Supreme Court (the judicial branch)\n  <\/td><td>\n  57\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  The U.S.\n  Congress (the legislative branch)\n  <\/td><td>\n  22\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  The\n  Presidency (the executive branch)\n  <\/td><td>\n  21\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>Those who\nare more aware of the U.S. Supreme Court generally express greater confidence\nin it. Familiarity breeds support in the case of the Court. General attention\nto politics is associated with greater confidence. (In this table, \u201cnone\u201d and\n\u201cvery little\u201d confidence are combined as \u201clow confidence,\u201d and \u201cquite a lot\u201d\nand \u201ca great deal\u201d are combined as \u201chigh\u201d confidence.)<em><br \/>\n<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Confidence in the Court by attention to politics<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Low Confidence<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Medium Confidence<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>High Confidence<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Low Attention\n  <\/td><td>\n  32\n  <\/td><td>\n  48\n  <\/td><td>\n  20\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Medium\n  Attention\n  <\/td><td>\n  17\n  <\/td><td>\n  46\n  <\/td><td>\n  37\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  High\n  Attention\n  <\/td><td>\n  18\n  <\/td><td>\n  36\n  <\/td><td>\n  46\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>Partisanship\nand ideology are related to confidence in the Court. Independents have lower\nconfidence than partisans, while Republicans have higher confidence than\nDemocrats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Confidence in the Court by party identification<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Low<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Medium<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>High<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Republican\n  <\/td><td>\n  14\n  <\/td><td>\n  32\n  <\/td><td>\n  54\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Lean\n  Republican\n  <\/td><td>\n  15\n  <\/td><td>\n  42\n  <\/td><td>\n  43\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Independent\n  <\/td><td>\n  31\n  <\/td><td>\n  46\n  <\/td><td>\n  23\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Lean Democrat\n  <\/td><td>\n  23\n  <\/td><td>\n  56\n  <\/td><td>\n  21\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Democrat\n  <\/td><td>\n  21\n  <\/td><td>\n  44\n  <\/td><td>\n  34\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>High\nconfidence in the Court is also associated with conservative ideology, whereas\nit is not as high among those with very liberal beliefs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Confidence in the Court by liberal-conservative\nideology<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Low<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Medium<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>High<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Very\n  Conservative\n  <\/td><td>\n  13\n  <\/td><td>\n  36\n  <\/td><td>\n  52\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Conservative\n  <\/td><td>\n  17\n  <\/td><td>\n  37\n  <\/td><td>\n  46\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Moderate\n  <\/td><td>\n  21\n  <\/td><td>\n  46\n  <\/td><td>\n  34\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Liberal\n  <\/td><td>\n  21\n  <\/td><td>\n  46\n  <\/td><td>\n  33\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Very Liberal\n  <\/td><td>\n  36\n  <\/td><td>\n  34\n  <\/td><td>\n  31\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Perceptions of the Supreme Court as\nmoderate to conservative<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The poll finds that, despite partisan battles over the U.S.\nSupreme Court in recent decades, the largest group, 50 percent, considers the\nCourt to occupy a \u201cmoderate\u201d position on the liberal-conservative continuum.\nConsiderably more, 39 percent, consider the Court conservative than the 12\npercent who consider it liberal. Few respondents see the Court as extreme in\neither ideological direction, with only 9 percent combined saying that it is\neither very conservative or very liberal.<em><br \/>\n<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>In general, would you describe the U.S. Supreme\nCourt as very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal or very liberal?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>Response<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Percent<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Very\n  conservative\n  <\/td><td>\n  6\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Conservative\n  <\/td><td>\n  33\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Moderate\n  <\/td><td>\n  50\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Liberal\n  <\/td><td>\n  9\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Very liberal\n  <\/td><td>\n  3\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>Those who\npay the most attention to politics are more likely to see the Court as\nconservative or very conservative, with 41 percent saying that it is moderate.\nFor the less attentive, majorities place the Court at the middle of the\nideological scale.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Perceived ideology of the Court by attention to\npolitics<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Very conservative<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Conservative<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Moderate<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Liberal<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Very liberal<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Low\n  <\/td><td>\n  3\n  <\/td><td>\n  24\n  <\/td><td>\n  62\n  <\/td><td>\n  7\n  <\/td><td>\n  5\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Medium\n  <\/td><td>\n  5\n  <\/td><td>\n  29\n  <\/td><td>\n  55\n  <\/td><td>\n  10\n  <\/td><td>\n  1\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  High\n  <\/td><td>\n  7\n  <\/td><td>\n  41\n  <\/td><td>\n  41\n  <\/td><td>\n  8\n  <\/td><td>\n  3\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>A\nmajority of Democrats and independents who lean Democratic see the Court as\nconservative or very conservative. Independents and Republicans are much more\nlikely to call the Court moderate, with about 60 percent of each of those two groups\nplacing the Court at the middle on ideology. None of the partisan categories\nsees an especially extreme court, showing that the Court is seen as being to\nthe middle, with the public view tilting a bit more one way or the other\ndepending on attention to politics or partisanship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Perceived ideology of the Court by party\nidentification<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Very conservative<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Conservative<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Moderate<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Liberal<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Very liberal<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Republican\n  <\/td><td>\n  4\n  <\/td><td>\n  23\n  <\/td><td>\n  58\n  <\/td><td>\n  11\n  <\/td><td>\n  3\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Lean\n  Republican\n  <\/td><td>\n  2\n  <\/td><td>\n  27\n  <\/td><td>\n  61\n  <\/td><td>\n  9\n  <\/td><td>\n  2\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Independent\n  <\/td><td>\n  2\n  <\/td><td>\n  23\n  <\/td><td>\n  64\n  <\/td><td>\n  6\n  <\/td><td>\n  5\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Lean Democrat\n  <\/td><td>\n  10\n  <\/td><td>\n  50\n  <\/td><td>\n  35\n  <\/td><td>\n  5\n  <\/td><td>\n  0\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Democrat\n  <\/td><td>\n  8\n  <\/td><td>\n  42\n  <\/td><td>\n  38\n  <\/td><td>\n  9\n  <\/td><td>\n  2\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>While\nmost people think the next appointment to the Court is important, one in five\nthink that it is not too important or not at all important (combined as \u201cnot\nimportant\u201d in tables below).<em><br \/>\n<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Importance of next court appointment<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>Response<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Percent<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Not important\n  <\/td><td>\n  22\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Somewhat\n  <\/td><td>\n  31\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Very\n  important\n  <\/td><td>\n  47\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>Those who\npay the most attention to politics in general are much more likely to say the\nnext appointment to the Court is very important. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Importance of next court appointment by attention to\npolitics<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Not important<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Somewhat<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Very important<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Low\n  <\/td><td>\n  50\n  <\/td><td>\n  32\n  <\/td><td>\n  18\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Medium\n  <\/td><td>\n  22\n  <\/td><td>\n  41\n  <\/td><td>\n  37\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  High\n  <\/td><td>\n  7\n  <\/td><td>\n  23\n  <\/td><td>\n  70\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p><a><strong>Institutional\nchange<\/strong><\/a><strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>There has\nbeen public discussion of changing the institutional structure of the Court. A\nmajority oppose increasing the number of justices, although more than one in\nthree somewhat favor an increase and 8 percent strongly favor a change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>[Increase the number of justices on the U.S. Supreme\nCourt] How much do you favor or oppose the following proposals affecting the\nSupreme Court?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>Response<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Percent<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Strongly\n  favor\n  <\/td><td>\n  8\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Favor\n  <\/td><td>\n  35\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Oppose\n  <\/td><td>\n  40\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Strongly\n  oppose\n  <\/td><td>\n  17\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>There is\nmajority support for setting a fixed term for justices to serve on the Court,\nreplacing the current life tenure.<em><br \/>\n<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>[Have judges serve a fixed term on the court rather\nthan serving life terms] How much do you favor or oppose the following\nproposals affecting the Supreme Court?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>Response<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Percent<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Strongly\n  favor\n  <\/td><td>\n  34\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Favor\n  <\/td><td>\n  38\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Oppose\n  <\/td><td>\n  20\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Strongly\n  oppose\n  <\/td><td>\n  8\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>Restricting\nthe power of judicial review is supported by 38 percent while 62 percent oppose\nthis. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>[Limit the ability of the Supreme Court to review\nand set aside acts of Congress as unconstitutional] How much do you favor or\noppose the following proposals affecting the Supreme Court?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>Response<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Percent<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Strongly\n  favor\n  <\/td><td>\n  8\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Favor\n  <\/td><td>\n  30\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Oppose\n  <\/td><td>\n  43\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Strongly\n  oppose\n  <\/td><td>\n  19\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>Partisanship\nplays a role in willingness to make changes to the number of justices, with\nDemocrats more supportive than Republicans, although even among strong\nDemocrats support for expansion is evenly divided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Favor expanding the Court by party identification<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Strongly favor<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Favor<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Oppose<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Strongly oppose<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Republican\n  <\/td><td>\n  3\n  <\/td><td>\n  28\n  <\/td><td>\n  42\n  <\/td><td>\n  27\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Lean\n  Republican\n  <\/td><td>\n  4\n  <\/td><td>\n  31\n  <\/td><td>\n  35\n  <\/td><td>\n  30\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Independent\n  <\/td><td>\n  14\n  <\/td><td>\n  40\n  <\/td><td>\n  33\n  <\/td><td>\n  14\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Lean Democrat\n  <\/td><td>\n  8\n  <\/td><td>\n  35\n  <\/td><td>\n  48\n  <\/td><td>\n  9\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Democrat\n  <\/td><td>\n  10\n  <\/td><td>\n  40\n  <\/td><td>\n  40\n  <\/td><td>\n  10\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>Support\nfor fixed terms is independent of partisanship, with similar support across all\nparty groups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Favor fixed terms for justices by party identification<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Strongly favor<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Favor<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Oppose<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Strongly oppose<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Republican\n  <\/td><td>\n  34\n  <\/td><td>\n  35\n  <\/td><td>\n  22\n  <\/td><td>\n  8\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Lean\n  Republican\n  <\/td><td>\n  34\n  <\/td><td>\n  35\n  <\/td><td>\n  20\n  <\/td><td>\n  11\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Independent\n  <\/td><td>\n  32\n  <\/td><td>\n  40\n  <\/td><td>\n  19\n  <\/td><td>\n  9\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Lean Democrat\n  <\/td><td>\n  33\n  <\/td><td>\n  38\n  <\/td><td>\n  24\n  <\/td><td>\n  5\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Democrat\n  <\/td><td>\n  34\n  <\/td><td>\n  41\n  <\/td><td>\n  19\n  <\/td><td>\n  6\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>There are\nmodest differences between partisans in support for limiting judicial review,\nwith Republicans a little more supportive than Democrats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Favor limiting judicial review by party\nidentification<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Strongly favor<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Favor<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Oppose<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Strongly oppose<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Republican\n  <\/td><td>\n  13\n  <\/td><td>\n  32\n  <\/td><td>\n  38\n  <\/td><td>\n  17\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Lean\n  Republican\n  <\/td><td>\n  6\n  <\/td><td>\n  21\n  <\/td><td>\n  49\n  <\/td><td>\n  24\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Independent\n  <\/td><td>\n  11\n  <\/td><td>\n  34\n  <\/td><td>\n  37\n  <\/td><td>\n  18\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Lean Democrat\n  <\/td><td>\n  5\n  <\/td><td>\n  23\n  <\/td><td>\n  51\n  <\/td><td>\n  21\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Democrat\n  <\/td><td>\n  4\n  <\/td><td>\n  33\n  <\/td><td>\n  44\n  <\/td><td>\n  19\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p><a><strong>Opposition\nto nominees<\/strong><\/a><strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The\nconfirmation of nominees to both the Supreme Court and lower federal courts has\ngrown far more contentious over the past several decades. During this period,\nopposition based on expected policy differences and based on partisanship,\nwhich once was rare, has become common.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>While\npartisan and policy differences have come to dominate elite debate over\nnominations, substantial majorities of the public say that these are not\nsufficient reasons to reject an otherwise qualified nominee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Fewer\nthan 40 percent say that a senator would be justified in rejecting an otherwise\nqualified nominee, with no ethical problems, based on how the senator believes\nthe nominee would decide cases. More than 60 percent say that this is not a\njustification for rejecting a nominee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>If a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court is qualified\nand has no ethical problems, would U.S. senators be justified or not justified\nin voting against that nominee simply because of how they believe the justice\nwould decide cases on issues such as abortion, gun control, or affirmative\naction?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>Response<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Percent<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Justified\n  <\/td><td>\n  38\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Not justified\n  <\/td><td>\n  62\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>Partisan objections to a nominee are seen as even\nless justified, with more than 80 percent saying that\nrejecting a qualified nominee simply because of party is not justified, while\n19 percent say that this is reason enough for a vote against confirmation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>If a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court is qualified\nand has no ethical problems, would U.S. senators be justified or not justified\nin voting against that nominee simply because the senator is from a different\npolitical party?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>Response<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Percent<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Justified\n  <\/td><td>\n  19\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Not justified\n  <\/td><td>\n  81\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>Rejection\ndue to partisan (i.e., party) differences is equally disapproved across party\nidentification, ideology, and strength of party identification or ideology.\nWhile party and policy are inextricably linked, the public does not support\npartisan differences as the sole basis of confirming or rejecting court\nnominees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Rejecting\nnominees based on how they are believed likely to rule on cases is somewhat\nmore dependent on the respondent\u2019s party and ideology. While Democratic and\nRepublican differences are not statistically significant, independents are\nsignificantly more likely to say that rejection based on policy differences is\nnot justified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Reject nominee over policy by party identification<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Justified<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Not justified<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Republican\n  <\/td><td>\n  37\n  <\/td><td>\n  63\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Lean\n  Republican\n  <\/td><td>\n  34\n  <\/td><td>\n  66\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Independent\n  <\/td><td>\n  26\n  <\/td><td>\n  74\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Lean Democrat\n  <\/td><td>\n  43\n  <\/td><td>\n  57\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Democrat\n  <\/td><td>\n  44\n  <\/td><td>\n  56\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>Those who\nsay that the next appointment is important are more likely to say that\nrejecting a nominee on policy grounds is justified. This does not carry over to\nrejection on partisan grounds, however, where there are no significant\ndifferences among respondents based on the importance that they attach to the\nnext appointment. Even among those who rate the next appointment as very\nimportant, less than half say that rejection of a nominee is justified on\npolicy grounds, and only one in five say so on party grounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Rejecting nominee over policy by importance of next\nappointment<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Justified<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Not justified<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Not important\n  <\/td><td>\n  29\n  <\/td><td>\n  71\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Somewhat\n  <\/td><td>\n  38\n  <\/td><td>\n  62\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Very\n  important\n  <\/td><td>\n  42\n  <\/td><td>\n  58\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Rejecting nominee over party by importance of next\nappointment<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Justified<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Not justified<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Not important\n  <\/td><td>\n  15\n  <\/td><td>\n  85\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Somewhat\n  <\/td><td>\n  20\n  <\/td><td>\n  80\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Very\n  important\n  <\/td><td>\n  21\n  <\/td><td>\n  79\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>Those who\nare most attentive to politics are also more willing to justify rejection of a\nnominee on policy grounds, but not willing to do so over partisan differences.\nAs with the importance assigned to the next nominee, more than half of those\nwho pay the most attention to politics say that rejecting a qualified nominee\non policy grounds is not justified, and more than 80 percent say this with\nrespect to partisan grounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Rejecting nominee over policy by attention to\npolitics<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Justified<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Not justified<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Low\n  <\/td><td>\n  29\n  <\/td><td>\n  71\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Medium\n  <\/td><td>\n  38\n  <\/td><td>\n  62\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  High\n  <\/td><td>\n  42\n  <\/td><td>\n  58\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Rejecting nominee over party by attention to\npolitics<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Justified<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Not justified<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Low\n  <\/td><td>\n  20\n  <\/td><td>\n  80\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Medium\n  <\/td><td>\n  22\n  <\/td><td>\n  78\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  High\n  <\/td><td>\n  17\n  <\/td><td>\n  83\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p><a><strong>Confirmations during an election\nyear<\/strong><\/a><strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The\ndecision by Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader, in 2016 not\nto hold hearings on any nominee by President Barack Obama to replace the late\nJustice Antonin Scalia was controversial. For the mass public this action was,\nin retrospect at least, not the right thing to do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>In February 2016, following the death of Justice\nAntonin Scalia, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced\nthat the Senate would not consider or hold hearings on any nominee President\nObama might name during an election year. In March, Obama nominated Judge\nMerrick Garland to the Supreme Court. The Senate did not hold a hearing and the\nnomination expired in January 2017. Was not holding a hearing on the nomination\nthe right thing or the wrong thing to do?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>Response<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Percent<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Right thing\n  to do\n  <\/td><td>\n  27\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Wrong thing\n  to do\n  <\/td><td>\n  73\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>The\npossibility of a nomination during the 2020 election year faces the question of\nconsistency with the 2016 precedent. Most respondents believe that a nomination\nin 2020 should result in hearings. However, nearly one in three now believe\nthat hearings should not be held in an election year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>If there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court during\nthe 2020 presidential election year and President Trump nominates someone, what\nshould the Senate do?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>Response<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Percent<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Hold hearings\n  <\/td><td>\n  69\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Not hold\n  hearings\n  <\/td><td>\n  31\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>Views of\nthe lack of hearings in 2016 are strongly related to partisanship, with\nRepublicans more likely than others to say that the refusal to consider a\nnomination was the right thing to do. But, even among Republicans, a majority\nsay that it was the wrong decision, as do nearly nine in 10 Democrats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>No confirmation hearings in 2016, by party\nidentification<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Right thing to do<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Wrong thing to do<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Republican\n  <\/td><td>\n  45\n  <\/td><td>\n  55\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Lean\n  Republican\n  <\/td><td>\n  34\n  <\/td><td>\n  66\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Independent\n  <\/td><td>\n  30\n  <\/td><td>\n  70\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Lean Democrat\n  <\/td><td>\n  13\n  <\/td><td>\n  87\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Democrat\n  <\/td><td>\n  13\n  <\/td><td>\n  87\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>As for\nholding hearings if a 2020 vacancy were to occur, Republicans strongly support\nhearings in the presidential election year, while nearly four in 10 Democrats\nsay that no hearings should occur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Hold confirmation hearings in 2020 by party\nidentification<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Hold hearings<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Not hold hearings<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Republican\n  <\/td><td>\n  72\n  <\/td><td>\n  28\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Lean\n  Republican\n  <\/td><td>\n  81\n  <\/td><td>\n  19\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Independent\n  <\/td><td>\n  76\n  <\/td><td>\n  24\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Lean Democrat\n  <\/td><td>\n  62\n  <\/td><td>\n  38\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Democrat\n  <\/td><td>\n  63\n  <\/td><td>\n  37\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p><a><strong>Preferences on past and potential\ndecisions<\/strong><\/a><strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>We asked\nabout a total of 14 cases. We described seven past decisions and seven possible\nfuture decisions. In the latter group, we based some descriptions on actual\ncases, while others were hypothetical, and we did not indicate whether such a\ndescription was based on an actual as opposed to hypothetical case. Our choice\nof topics reflects recent and current cases that have received widespread news\ncoverage. In all cases, we adopted common journalistic language to describe the\noutcome or consequences of decisions, rather than attempting a fuller syllabus\nfor each case. With the exception of <em>Roe\nv. Wade<\/em>, we did not\nidentify cases by name.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a><strong>Opinion\nof past cases<\/strong><\/a><strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Past\ndecisions describe rulings on same-sex marriage, use of race in college\nadmissions, a ban on travel to the United States from Muslim-majority\ncountries, coverage of birth control in employee health plans, campaign\nspending by corporations and unions, partisan gerrymandering, and an\nindividual\u2019s right to possess a firearm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Public\nviews of these actual or possible decisions vary. In some cases, a majority\nfavor past decisions, while in others the majority oppose the decisions. With\npotential future decisions, there are some possible outcomes that receive more\npopular support than others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The full\nquestion wording and the short description used in the table below follow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Past decisions:\n\u201cHow much do you favor or oppose the following recent Supreme Court decisions?\u201d<ul><li><strong>Corporate political spending: <\/strong>\u201cDecided that corporations and unions can spend\nunlimited amounts of money to directly support or oppose political candidates.\u201d<\/li><\/ul><ul><li><strong>Race in admissions:<\/strong> \u201cDecided colleges can use race as one factor in\ndeciding which applicants to admit.\u201d<\/li><\/ul><ul><li><strong>Partisan gerrymanders:<\/strong> \u201cDecided that federal courts lack the\nconstitutional authority to rule on cases involving legislative and\ncongressional district boundaries designed to favor one political party (known\nas gerrymanders).\u201d<\/li><\/ul><ul><li><strong>Exclude birth control coverage:<\/strong> \u201cDecided that privately held, for-profit companies\nmay choose not to pay for coverage of prescription birth control in their\nworkers\u2019 health plans if the company\u2019s owner has religious objections.\u201d<\/li><\/ul><ul><li><strong>Upheld travel ban:<\/strong> \u201cUpheld President Donald Trump\u2019s travel ban against\ncitizens of five Muslim-majority countries.\u201d<\/li><\/ul><ul><li><strong>Same-sex marriage:<\/strong> \u201cEstablished a constitutional right for same-sex\ncouples to marry.\u201d<\/li><\/ul><ul><li><strong>Right to firearms:<\/strong> \u201cThe Second Amendment reads: \u2018A well regulated\nMilitia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the\npeople to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.\u2019 In 2008, the court ruled\nthat the Second Amendment protects an individual\u2019s right to possess a firearm\nunconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally\nlawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.&#8221;<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><em><br \/>\n<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Public views of past decisions.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Strongly Oppose<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Oppose<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Favor<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Strongly Favor<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Don\u2019t know<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Corporate\n  political spending\n  <\/td><td>\n  53\n  <\/td><td>\n  22\n  <\/td><td>\n  11\n  <\/td><td>\n  3\n  <\/td><td>\n  10\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Race in\n  admissions\n  <\/td><td>\n  57\n  <\/td><td>\n  21\n  <\/td><td>\n  11\n  <\/td><td>\n  4\n  <\/td><td>\n  7\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Partisan\n  gerrymanders\n  <\/td><td>\n  26\n  <\/td><td>\n  19\n  <\/td><td>\n  15\n  <\/td><td>\n  11\n  <\/td><td>\n  29\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Exclude birth\n  control coverage\n  <\/td><td>\n  44\n  <\/td><td>\n  19\n  <\/td><td>\n  13\n  <\/td><td>\n  14\n  <\/td><td>\n  10\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Upheld travel\n  ban\n  <\/td><td>\n  33\n  <\/td><td>\n  16\n  <\/td><td>\n  19\n  <\/td><td>\n  23\n  <\/td><td>\n  10\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Same-sex\n  marriage\n  <\/td><td>\n  23\n  <\/td><td>\n  13\n  <\/td><td>\n  20\n  <\/td><td>\n  36\n  <\/td><td>\n  9\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Right to\n  firearm\n  <\/td><td>\n  11\n  <\/td><td>\n  13\n  <\/td><td>\n  27\n  <\/td><td>\n  40\n  <\/td><td>\n  8\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Possible\nfuture decisions<\/strong><strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Some of\nthe future decisions are taken from cases currently on the Court\u2019s docket while\nothers are hypothetical. These questions asked how much the respondent would\nfavor or oppose the outcome as described. Possible decisions included\noverturning <em>Roe v. Wade<\/em>; striking down the Affordable Care Act; allowing\nbusiness owners to deny services to gay people for religious reasons; allowing\nthe Trump administration to end the DACA program; extending protections against\nemployment discrimination to cover gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals;\nallowing public funds that support students attending private schools to also\ninclude those attending religious schools; and deciding that a ban on\nsemi-automatic rifles violates the Second Amendment. The full question wording\nand the short description used in the table below follows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Possible future\ndecisions: \u201cHow much do you favor or oppose the following possible Supreme\nCourt decisions?\u201d<ul><li><strong>Overturn Roe v. Wade:<\/strong> \u201cOverturn Roe versus Wade, thus striking down the\n1973 decision that made abortion legal in all 50 states.\u201d<\/li><\/ul><ul><li><strong>End DACA:<\/strong> \u201cDecide the administration can end the DACA program\nthat allows young people who were brought to the United States illegally as\nchildren to register and avoid immediate deportation.\u201d<\/li><\/ul><ul><li><strong>Deny service to gay people: <\/strong>\u201cDecide that a business owner\u2019s religious beliefs or\nfree speech rights can justify refusing some services to gay people.\u201d<\/li><\/ul><ul><li><strong>Public funds for religious school\nstudents:<\/strong> \u201cDecide that a program that financially supports\nstudents attending private schools may also include religious schools without\nviolating the constitution.\u201d<\/li><\/ul><ul><li><strong>Strike down ACA:<\/strong> \u201cStrike down the 2010 health care reform law, also\ncalled Obamacare, by declaring it unconstitutional.\u201d<\/li><\/ul><ul><li><strong>Second Amendment prohibits semi-automatic\nrifle ban:<\/strong> \u201cDecide that a ban on semi-automatic rifles\nviolates the Second Amendment and thus is unconstitutional.\u201d<\/li><\/ul><ul><li><strong>Employment discrimination includes LGBTQ\npeople: <\/strong>\u201cDecide that laws prohibiting employment\ndiscrimination on the basis of sex also apply to discrimination based on sexual\norientation of gay, lesbian, or transgender individuals.\u201d<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Public views of possible future decisions.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Strongly Oppose<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Oppose<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Favor<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Strongly Favor<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Don\u2019t know<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Overturn Roe\n  v. Wade\n  <\/td><td>\n  47\n  <\/td><td>\n  14\n  <\/td><td>\n  13\n  <\/td><td>\n  16\n  <\/td><td>\n  9\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  End DACA\n  <\/td><td>\n  37\n  <\/td><td>\n  16\n  <\/td><td>\n  20\n  <\/td><td>\n  17\n  <\/td><td>\n  9\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Deny service\n  to gay people\n  <\/td><td>\n  40\n  <\/td><td>\n  17\n  <\/td><td>\n  15\n  <\/td><td>\n  19\n  <\/td><td>\n  9\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Public funds\n  for religious school students\n  <\/td><td>\n  17\n  <\/td><td>\n  16\n  <\/td><td>\n  31\n  <\/td><td>\n  22\n  <\/td><td>\n  14\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Strike down\n  ACA\n  <\/td><td>\n  35\n  <\/td><td>\n  17\n  <\/td><td>\n  15\n  <\/td><td>\n  23\n  <\/td><td>\n  10\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Second\n  Amendment prohibits semi-automatic rifle ban\n  <\/td><td>\n  36\n  <\/td><td>\n  17\n  <\/td><td>\n  14\n  <\/td><td>\n  25\n  <\/td><td>\n  8\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Employment\n  discrimination includes LGBTQ\n  <\/td><td>\n  18\n  <\/td><td>\n  12\n  <\/td><td>\n  22\n  <\/td><td>\n  39\n  <\/td><td>\n  9\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p><a><strong>Awareness\nand perception of justices<\/strong><\/a><strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>We asked\nrespondents if they had never heard of each justice, had heard of each justice\nbut didn\u2019t have an opinion, and if they were aware whether they had a favorable\nor unfavorable opinion. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>There is\nconsiderable variation in awareness of the justices, from 84 percent unable to\nrate Justice Stephen Breyer to 42 percent for Justice Brett Kavanaugh and 41\npercent for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The\nawareness and favorability ratings of the justices are shown in the table\nbelow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Some justices of the Supreme Court are better known\nthan others. For each of these names, have you never heard of them, heard of\nthem but don\u2019t know enough to have an opinion of them, have a favorable\nopinion, or have an unfavorable opinion?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Unfavorable<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Unable to rate<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Favorable<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Breyer\n  <\/td><td>\n  5\n  <\/td><td>\n  84\n  <\/td><td>\n  11\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Kagan\n  <\/td><td>\n  7\n  <\/td><td>\n  78\n  <\/td><td>\n  15\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Alito\n  <\/td><td>\n  8\n  <\/td><td>\n  78\n  <\/td><td>\n  15\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Gorsuch\n  <\/td><td>\n  12\n  <\/td><td>\n  70\n  <\/td><td>\n  18\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Roberts\n  <\/td><td>\n  9\n  <\/td><td>\n  66\n  <\/td><td>\n  25\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Sotomayor\n  <\/td><td>\n  11\n  <\/td><td>\n  59\n  <\/td><td>\n  30\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Thomas\n  <\/td><td>\n  23\n  <\/td><td>\n  49\n  <\/td><td>\n  28\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Kavanaugh\n  <\/td><td>\n  32\n  <\/td><td>\n  42\n  <\/td><td>\n  26\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Ginsburg\n  <\/td><td>\n  17\n  <\/td><td>\n  41\n  <\/td><td>\n  41\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>Just over\none in four respondents lacked enough information to rate even a single justice,\nwith an additional 11 percent able to rate only one justice. Just over a third\nof respondents said that they were able to rate a majority of the justices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Number of justices able to rate, full scale<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>Response<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Percent<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  0\n  <\/td><td>\n  28\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  1\n  <\/td><td>\n  11\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  2\n  <\/td><td>\n  9\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  3\n  <\/td><td>\n  9\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  4\n  <\/td><td>\n  9\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  5\n  <\/td><td>\n  8\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  6\n  <\/td><td>\n  8\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  7\n  <\/td><td>\n  6\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  8\n  <\/td><td>\n  4\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  9\n  <\/td><td>\n  8\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p><a><strong>Factual\nknowledge<\/strong><\/a><strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>We\nmeasure knowledge of the Court and the Constitution through four items,\nassessing understanding of judicial review, the authority of the Court over the\npresident, the location of the Bill of Rights within the Constitution, and\nwhich party\u2019s presidents have appointed a majority of the current Court. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Does the Supreme Court have the power to review laws\npassed by Congress and to declare them invalid if they conflict with the\nConstitution?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>Response<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Percent<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Yes, the\n  Supreme Court has this power\n  <\/td><td>\n  86\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  No, the\n  Supreme Court does not have this power\n  <\/td><td>\n  14\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p><em>If the Supreme Court rules against the president in\na case, does the president have the power to ignore that ruling, or is the\npresident required to do as the ruling says?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>Response<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Percent<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  The president\n  has the power to ignore the ruling\n  <\/td><td>\n  23\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  The president\n  is required to do as the ruling says\n  <\/td><td>\n  77\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p><em><br \/>\n<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Which part of the Constitution is called the \u2018Bill\nof Rights\u2019?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>Response<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Percent<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Article I\n  <\/td><td>\n  9\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Article II\n  <\/td><td>\n  3\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Article III\n  <\/td><td>\n  2\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Amendments\n  1-10\n  <\/td><td>\n  52\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Amendments\n  13-15\n  <\/td><td>\n  1\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  I don\u2019t know\n  <\/td><td>\n  33\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p><em>What is your guess as to whether a majority of the\ncurrent U.S. Supreme Court justices were appointed by Democratic or Republican\npresidents?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>Response<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Percent<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Definitely\n  Democratic Majority\n  <\/td><td>\n  4\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Probably Democratic\n  Majority\n  <\/td><td>\n  23\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Probably\n  Republican Majority\n  <\/td><td>\n  54\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Definitely\n  Republican Majority\n  <\/td><td>\n  19\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>(The\ncorrect answer is <em>Republican<\/em>. Five were appointed by Republican presidents\nand four by Democratic presidents.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>We can\nsum up the correct answers to create a knowledge score for each respondent,\nranging from zero to four correct answers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Knowledge of factual information, full scale<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>Response<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Percent<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  0\n  <\/td><td>\n  2\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  1\n  <\/td><td>\n  6\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  2\n  <\/td><td>\n  25\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  3\n  <\/td><td>\n  39\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  4\n  <\/td><td>\n  29\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>How the\npublic thinks justices decide and how it thinks they should decide<\/strong><strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>While\nsome see the Court as driven by politics, a near two-to-one majority say that\njustices base their decisions primarily on the law.<em><br \/>\n<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>In general, what most often motivates Supreme Court\njustices\u2019 decisions?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>Response<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Percent<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Mainly\n  politics\n  <\/td><td>\n  36\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Mainly the\n  law\n  <\/td><td>\n  64\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>A\nmajority say that justices should base their decisions on an evolving meaning\nof the Constitution rather than on what the Constitution was originally\nunderstood to mean.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>How should Supreme Court justices base their\ndecisions? On their interpretations of what the U.S. Constitution was\nunderstood to mean when it was originally written or on the Constitution as a\ndocument whose meaning may have evolved over time?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>Response<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Percent<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Original\n  meaning\n  <\/td><td>\n  43\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Evolving\n  meaning\n  <\/td><td>\n  57\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>A\nmajority of the public believes that a decision should produce a \u201cfair\u201d outcome\nrather than strictly follow the law if that would produce an unfair outcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Which is more important, a decision that leads to a\nfair outcome or one that follows the law, even if seemingly unfair?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>Response<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Percent<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  That leads to\n  a fair outcome\n  <\/td><td>\n  56\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  That follows\n  the law, even if seemingly unfair\n  <\/td><td>\n  44\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>In\nthinking about the qualities important in a justice, the public puts greater\nemphasis on good judgment and empathy, followed by respect for existing decisions.\nFollowing a judicial philosophy was deemed least important. (In this table \u201cnot\nat all important\u201d and \u201cnot very important\u201d are combined as \u201cunimportant.\u201d)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>\u201cHow important\nis it for a good Supreme Court justice to have each of these characteristics?\u201d<ul><li>\u201cBe able to\nempathize with ordinary people; that is, to be able to understand how the law\nhurts or helps the people\u201d<\/li><\/ul><ul><li>\u201cExercise good\njudgment and wisdom in the application of the law rather than only strict\ntechnical compliance with the law as it is written\u201d<\/li><\/ul><ul><li>\u201cRespect for\nexisting Supreme Court decisions\u201d<\/li><\/ul><ul><li>\u201cInterpret the\nlaw according to the justice\u2019s judicial philosophy, whether liberal or\nconservative\u201d<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><em>How important is it for a good Supreme Court justice\nto have each of these characteristics?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Unimportant<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Somewhat<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Very<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Empathy\n  <\/td><td>\n  10\n  <\/td><td>\n  21\n  <\/td><td>\n  69\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Good judgment\n  <\/td><td>\n  10\n  <\/td><td>\n  25\n  <\/td><td>\n  65\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Respect\n  precedent\n  <\/td><td>\n  12\n  <\/td><td>\n  44\n  <\/td><td>\n  44\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Judicial\n  philosophy\n  <\/td><td>\n  26\n  <\/td><td>\n  31\n  <\/td><td>\n  43\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>The Court\nand opinions of the president<\/strong><strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Appointments\nto the Supreme Court emerged as an important element in the 2016 presidential\ncampaign when then-candidate Donald Trump released a list of names from which\nhe pledged to select nominees to the Court. With two subsequent appointments to\nthe Court, this issue has remained salient as a congressional issue as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Asked how\nmuch they approve of President Trump\u2019s handling of Supreme Court appointments,\n43 percent approve, and 57 percent disapprove.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>[Appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court] How much do\nyou approve or disapprove of the way Trump is handling the following issues?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>Response<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Percent<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Strongly\n  approve\n  <\/td><td>\n  22\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Somewhat\n  approve\n  <\/td><td>\n  21\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Somewhat\n  disapprove\n  <\/td><td>\n  19\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Strongly\n  disapprove\n  <\/td><td>\n  38\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>For\ncomparison, 40 percent approve of President Trump\u2019s handling of his job\noverall, while 60 percent disapprove, a slightly worse overall approval rating\nthan for his handling of court nominations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Overall, how much do you approve or disapprove of\nthe way Trump is handling his job as president?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>Response<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Percent<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Strongly\n  approve\n  <\/td><td>\n  20\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Somewhat\n  approve\n  <\/td><td>\n  20\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Somewhat\n  disapprove\n  <\/td><td>\n  14\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Strongly\n  disapprove\n  <\/td><td>\n  46\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>Asked\nabout their confidence in a future Trump nominee, 32 percent say they have a\ngreat deal or quite a lot of confidence, 13 percent have some, while 56 percent\nsay they have little or no confidence that the next nominee will be the right\nkind of person for the Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>If there is another opening on the Supreme Court,\nhow much confidence do you have that President Donald Trump will select the\nright kind of person to sit on the Supreme Court?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>Response<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Percent<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  A great deal\n  of confidence\n  <\/td><td>\n  19\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Quite a lot\n  of confidence\n  <\/td><td>\n  13\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Some\n  confidence\n  <\/td><td>\n  13\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Very little\n  confidence\n  <\/td><td>\n  19\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  None at all\n  <\/td><td>\n  37\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>Views of\npresidential performance overall and of judicial matters are, unsurprisingly,\nclosely tied to partisanship, with nearly identical correlations of 0.74 and\n0.73, respectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Approval of Trump\u2019s handling of nominations to the\nSupreme Court by party identification<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  <strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Strongly approve<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Somewhat approve<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Somewhat disapprove<\/strong>\n  <\/td><td>\n  <strong>Strongly disapprove<\/strong>\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Republican\n  <\/td><td>\n  59\n  <\/td><td>\n  30\n  <\/td><td>\n  7\n  <\/td><td>\n  4\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Lean Republican\n  <\/td><td>\n  39\n  <\/td><td>\n  41\n  <\/td><td>\n  12\n  <\/td><td>\n  8\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Independent\n  <\/td><td>\n  7\n  <\/td><td>\n  28\n  <\/td><td>\n  31\n  <\/td><td>\n  34\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Lean Democrat\n  <\/td><td>\n  1\n  <\/td><td>\n  5\n  <\/td><td>\n  31\n  <\/td><td>\n  63\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Democrat\n  <\/td><td>\n  2\n  <\/td><td>\n  7\n  <\/td><td>\n  22\n  <\/td><td>\n  69\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>A\nmultivariate model of overall Trump job approval, including the effects of\npartisanship and ideology, finds that approval of court nominations has a\nstrong and statistically significant relationship with overall job approval.\nThe favorability rating of Justice Kavanaugh is also a statistically\nsignificant predictor of job approval, while the rating of Trump\u2019s other\nappointee, Justice Gorsuch, is not statistically significant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Opinion\non handling of nominations also has statistically significant effects on vote\nchoice for president in 2020. A multivariate model that predicts vote if the\nfinal election is between President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden\nand if the final election is between Trump and Sen. Elizabeth Warren results in\nsimilar conclusions. The model, which includes partisanship, ideology, and\noverall job approval, finds that there is an additional statistically\nsignificant effect of approval of court nominations, and of favorability to\nKavanaugh, with no statistically significant effect for favorability to\nGorsuch.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>While\nother factors such as party, ideology, and overall performance are powerful\npredictors of vote choice, the statistical model supports the idea that court\nappointments are an additional factor in evaluations of presidential\nperformance and in vote choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A more\ndetailed analysis of the survey findings is available at <a href=\"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/poll\/category\/results-and-data\/\">https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/poll\/category\/results-and-data\/<\/a><strong><br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>About the Marquette Law School Poll<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a>The survey was conducted Sept. 3-13, 2019,\ninterviewing 1,423 adults nationwide, with a margin of error of +\/-3.6\npercentage points. <\/a>Interviews were\nconducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) using its AmeriSpeak\nPanel, a national probability sample, with interviews conducted online. The\ndetailed methodology statement, complete survey instrument, topline results,\nand crosstabs are available at <a href=\"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/poll\/category\/results-and-data\/\">https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/poll\/category\/results-and-data\/<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>MILWAUKEE \u2014 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 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ocean_post_layout":"","ocean_both_sidebars_style":"","ocean_both_sidebars_content_width":0,"ocean_both_sidebars_sidebars_width":0,"ocean_sidebar":"","ocean_second_sidebar":"","ocean_disable_margins":"enable","ocean_add_body_class":"","ocean_shortcode_before_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_after_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_before_header":"","ocean_shortcode_after_header":"","ocean_has_shortcode":"","ocean_shortcode_after_title":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_bottom":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_bottom":"","ocean_display_top_bar":"default","ocean_display_header":"default","ocean_header_style":"","ocean_center_header_left_menu":"","ocean_custom_header_template":"","ocean_custom_logo":0,"ocean_custom_retina_logo":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_height":0,"ocean_header_custom_menu":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_family":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_subset":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_size":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_unit":"px","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_line_height":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_unit":"","ocean_menu_typo_spacing":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_unit":"","ocean_menu_link_color":"","ocean_menu_link_color_hover":"","ocean_menu_link_color_active":"","ocean_menu_link_background":"","ocean_menu_link_hover_background":"","ocean_menu_link_active_background":"","ocean_menu_social_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_links_color":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_color":"","ocean_disable_title":"default","ocean_disable_heading":"default","ocean_post_title":"","ocean_post_subheading":"","ocean_post_title_style":"","ocean_post_title_background_color":"","ocean_post_title_background":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_image_position":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_attachment":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_repeat":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_size":"","ocean_post_title_height":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay":0.5,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay_color":"","ocean_disable_breadcrumbs":"default","ocean_breadcrumbs_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_separator_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_hover_color":"","ocean_display_footer_widgets":"default","ocean_display_footer_bottom":"default","ocean_custom_footer_template":"","ocean_post_oembed":"","ocean_post_self_hosted_media":"","ocean_post_video_embed":"","ocean_link_format":"","ocean_link_format_target":"self","ocean_quote_format":"","ocean_quote_format_link":"post","ocean_gallery_link_images":"on","ocean_gallery_id":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1930","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-poll-release","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/poll\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1930","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/poll\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/poll\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/poll\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/poll\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1930"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/poll\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1930\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1932,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/poll\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1930\/revisions\/1932"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/poll\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1930"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/poll\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1930"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/poll\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1930"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}