Only about 3 in 10 U.S. adults think justices are more likely to provide an independent check on other branches of government by being fair and impartial, poll shows.

A solid majority of Americans say Supreme Court justices are more likely to be guided by their own ideology rather than serving as neutral arbiters of government authority, a new poll finds, as the high court is poised to rule on major cases involving former President Donald Trump and other divisive issues.

The survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 7 in 10 Americans think the high court’s justices are more influenced by ideology, while only about 3 in 10 U.S. adults think the justices are more likely to provide an independent check on other branches of government by being fair and impartial.

The poll reflects the continued erosion of confidence in the Supreme Court, which enjoyed broader trust as recently as a decade ago. It underscores the challenge faced by the nine justices — six appointed by Republican presidents and three by Democrats — of being seen as something other than just another element of Washington’s hyper-partisanship.

  • SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    14·
    3 days ago

    This is true. It can be strived for, though, and there are strategies to overcome bias, increase impartiality, and identify bias in others. If the United States supreme court (and really its legal system too) had any integrity, it would champion doing so.

    • blazera@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      3 days ago

      I think the best strategy is to assume the worst. Assume that theyll take whatever bribes they can get away with, empower their political party however they can, seek to harm groups theyre hateful towards, etc. Restrict what they can get away with, do not permit any self accountability, keep the roster changing so corrupt roots cant go deep.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      4·
      3 days ago

      If the United States supreme court (and really its legal system too) had any integrity, it would champion doing so.

      I think most of the liberal justice would argue the court is and that’s the problem. The keystone of Originalist philosophy is that judges should be impartial and leave policy decisions to the people (except when the constitution prohibits restrictions). To do that they are supposed to follow the original meaning, not the contemporary understanding.

      In Living Constitutionalism judges are expected to apply their own personal standards and worry about the practical reproductions (that they for see).