The Supreme Court's Decline in the Polls

After the American Century

A court without legitimacy is a danger to democracy.

For decades the Supreme Court enjoyed a high rating in the polls. It was generally approved by more than half the population, who believed it upheld the law and the Constitution. Back in the middle 1990s the Court enjoyed immense popularity with approval ratings as high as 80%. In 2000, more than 60% of the public approved of the court, and less than 30% disapproved. But as the Court has become increasingly polarized, public trust in the Court has fallen. Between 2014 and 2018 more people disapproved than approved of the Court. Then it briefly recovered its good standing with the people until 2022 when it fell precipitously. Since that time, its disapproval rating has been higher than 50%.  In January, 2025,  just 38.8% approved of the Court.  

Courtesy of the Library of Congress

More than 60% of the public do not trust the justices to do the right thing. It does not help that the Court lacks ethical guidelines concerning conflict of interest. Nor does a majority of the public agree with its decision that presidents are immune from prosecution for their actions. Nor are the Court's decisions on abortion approved by a majority of Americans. Nor are Clarence Thomas's acceptance of many expensive trips and gifts from wealthy conservatives acceptable. Nor has it been a good thing for American democracy that the court has sanctified unlimited private spending by candidates, equating campaign donations with freedom of speech. The Court no longer seems impartial or wise.

Back in the 1990s, both Repblicans and Democrats had extremely high levels of satisfaction with the Court. No more. Today, only one in four Democrats approves of the Court. In contrst. 3 out of 4 Republicans like what it is doing. The Court has adopted a partisan agenda, and in doing so it has lost its aura of impartiality. It risks seeming an illegitimate rubber stamp that most Democrats and a majority of the American public disdain.

In short, the legitimacy of the Supreme Court was once unassailable, but now it is questionable. Will the Court's reputation decline further during the Trump second term? How much lower can it go before it loses the credibility and respect that are necessary before its decisions will be accepted? A court without legitimacy is a danger to democracy.

"The Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts"

After the American Century

The Supreme Court has ruled that the President of the United States cannot be held legally accountable for his actions as head of the government. This is an absurdity in a democratic nation, but more to the point, it violates the intentions of the founding fathers of the United States. The fought a Revolution to escape from the rule of the King of England, and they had no desire to make the president a replacement monarch.

But this week. the Court decided that presidential immunity applies to all official acts of the president, including acts that discredit and interfere with elections, as well as actions that encourage mob violence against Congress.  I urge everyone to read the decision in its tortured and incompetent reasoning, but here are the main points, as summarized by the justices themselves: 

A federal grand jury indicted former President Donald J. Trump on four counts for conduct that occurred during his Presidency following the November 2020 election.  The indictment alleged that after losing that election, Trump conspired to overturn it by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the collecting, counting, and certifying of the election results.  Trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on Presidential immunity, arguing that a President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, and that the indictment’s allegations fell within the core of his official duties.  The District Court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts.  The D. C. Circuit affirmed.  Both the District Court and the D. C. Circuit declined to decide whether the indicted conduct involved official acts. 

Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.  And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.  There is no immunity for unofficial acts.

On the following page: "The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority."

This is rank treason. The Supreme Court's decision subverts and undermines the Constitution, giving unlimited power to the chief executive, making him immune from the checks and balances envisioned by the architects of the federal government. Given this decision, neither Congress nor the Courts have any power to prevent crimes by the chief executive. They have left a gaping hole in their decision, failing to define what are official acts as distinguished from unofficial acts. The specific case involves an attack on Congress on January 6th, 2021.  Can a mob attack Congress, encouraged by the president in a speech immediately before it occurred, and these proceedings be considered an official act? Apparently, the justices think so. The six justices who made this decision have lost credibility. They have severely undermined the reputation of the Court. They have created legal sanctions for dictatorship. 

The majority who made this decision have also discredited their own institution. Why should anyone respect court opinions in the future? There is a bit of satisfaction in knowing that the six justices who signed the decision have inscribed their names in history as incompetents who failed in their duty to uphold the Constitution. They will be reviled forever by historians and legal scholars, and Chief Justice Roberts in particular will go down as the worst head of the Court since it began. If the nation survives his tenure, it will be no thanks to him.

In contrast. history will honor the three dissenting justices.

"JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting. 

Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency.  It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President. . .  the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more.  Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent."