New Blog: stevenwhite.wordpress.com

SCOTUS and Public Opinion

The Washington Post reports:

About half of the public thinks the Supreme Court is generally balanced in its decisions, but a growing number of Americans say the court has become "too conservative" in the two years since President Bush began nominating justices, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Nearly a third of the public -- 31 percent -- thinks the court is too far to the right, a noticeable jump since the question was last asked in July 2005

"[T]hose who said it is 'generally balanced in its decisions' declined from 55 percent to 47 percent," the article continues.

This sounds like good news for liberals, and I guess it is in a small, incrementalist way. But what really strikes me about these numbers is that, despite the radical changes the Court is pushing, only 31 percent think the court is too far right.

The Post also has a little fun with wording:

Liberals, on the other hand, portray the court's decision to uphold the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, passed by Congress in 2003, as the first step toward overruling Roe v. Wade and see the race decision as a retreat from civil rights.

While I think the civil rights part is clearly true, I'll acknowledge it's at least debatable in some sense. But the idea that the court is doing things as early steps towards reducing reproductive rights? That's really not just something "Liberals...portray" the court as doing. That's simply what it's doing, whether one thinks it is a good thing or bad thing. Maybe the immediate goal isn't overturning Roe, but it is at least making it mostly empty and meaningless.

The Separation of POTUS from SCOTUS

This Democratic Strategist post strikes me as a really bad idea: The staff suggests a congressional reshuffling of the number of seats on the Supreme Court if the Democrats win the White House in 2008, because the Constitution does not require 9, and there have been other numbers throughout history. They write:

Of course there would be much whining, weeping and gnashing of teeth on the right and some opposition from ossified traditionalists. There would be a lot of belly-aching about "packing the court." But if they want to invoke memory of FDR, a Democrat who knew how to win a war, save a devasted economy and provide hope for the nation and world, bring it on. Yes, it would take a huge fight to get it done. But, if the alternative is getting progressive legislation stuffed by Roberts and Co. time and again, where's the downside?

The downside is principle. Unless the folks at TDS can think of enough electoral strategizing ideas to keep the Democrats in power for all of eternity, the Republicans will retake the White House sometime in the near future. And if the Democrats did something like change the makeup of the Court, what would keep the GOP from doing exactly the same thing? At some point, each new president would not only have to appoint their advisors, but also decide how many Supreme Court justices they want to work with.

Fortunately, I don't think this is going anywhere.