Posted on 09/22/2015 9:20:54 AM PDT by wagglebee
PRINCETON, New Jersey, September 22, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – The latest Gallup poll shows that Americans' trust in the judiciary has fallen to an all-time low.
Trust in the judicial branch of government dropped eight points just in the last year, which saw major decisions including the constitutionalizing of homosexual "marriages."
It is a "significant" loss of trust, according to Gallup, with only 53 percent of Americans responding that they have "a great deal" or even just "a fair amount" of trust in the third branch of government. Trust in the executive (45%) and legislative (32%) branches are also quite low, but both were slightly up from last year.
In 2009, Americans' trust in the judiciary was 76 percent. In just the six years since then, mistrust has risen in nearly a third of Americans.
The Gallup website explained that "the decline in trust in the judicial branch likely stems from the Supreme Court's controversial decisions this year to legalize same-sex marriage, and uphold a key provision of the Affordable Care Act" (Obamacare). "As a result, the Supreme Court's job approval rating among Republicans plummeted to 18% in July," the polling website reported.
Additionally, a growing number of Americans (37%) describe the court's ideology as "too liberal," up seven percent from last year. That's the highest percent of Americans considering the court overly liberal in 22 years.
Gallup speculated that the low trust and "too liberal" opinions are "the effect of the Supreme Court's prominent left-leaning decisions."
Notably, 63 percent of Republicans and 35 percent of independents now say the Supreme Court is too liberal, with both figures up from last year. A large number of Democrats moved from saying the Supreme Court was "too conservative" to saying the nation's highest court is "about right" (54%).
Gallup concluded that "the decline this year is almost certainly a reaction – primarily among Republicans – to the Supreme Court's landmark ruling on same-sex marriage and its turning away the latest legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act" (ObamaCare).
The results are based on Gallup's annual "Governance" poll, taken September 9-13. Just over one thousand people age 18 or older were randomly called via landline telephone (40%) and cell phone (60%). Gallup says the poll has only a plus-or-minus four-percent possibility of error.
Now there's a new, revolutionary phrase.
Funny, but this looks likes none of the methods for amending the Constitution I've ever read about in the document itself.
Hahahaha, now why didn’t I think of that? Good one.
Agreed, I have posted same several times and yet many freepers continue to use the language fabricated by lesbians, coprophilic male queers, and the genitally mutilated freaks.
Yep I have noticed it too. Shame our side including some on here would rather use the left wing language than actually calling it what it is.
Guess some would rather be PC and accepted tan tell it how it is.
The queers are loud, nasty, and disease-ridden bringing it on themselves. It was easy to predict obamacare was going to rise dramatically—2 primary reasons, 1. obamacare is the biggest welfare increase since the 60s—the rest of us are now paying for our insurance and the insurance for the welfare slugs; 2. government overhead to allow the DC lawyers to run obamacare and line their pockets while doing it add about 50% to the cost of premiums. This was very easy to see coming.
lawyers run everything. Every new law, rule, regulation is ultimately putting money in the pockets of lawyers and judges—there are no exceptions. 90% of the laws are completely unnecessary, but criminalizing every U.S. citizen and extracting money from every business and every government entity is what makes them rich. They have become the modern mafia extorting a piece of everything.
Well let’s see. If courts are they to excessively sue people for someone else’s hurt feelings, why should anyone trust them? What are they going to sue people for next. If anything, the courts are the guys who love to grind the poor down.
Yes, indeed. Our path back to liberty requires that attorneys be drastically re-purposed.
I can't let this one pass in silence.
Give me a Supreme Court of three Orthodox Jews and six traditional Roman Catholics and we'll have a much better court.
Our problem with the current Supreme Court is not the professed religion of the justices, but rather the rejection by the justices of the religious beliefs of the groups with which they claim to be affiliated.
I'm an evangelical Protestant, but I'd much rather vote for an Orthodox Jewish or traditional Roman Catholic candidate than for a mainline liberal Protestant. I hope conservative Jewish and Catholic voters would say the same about an evangelical running against a liberal Jewish or liberal Catholic candidate.
Depending on circumstances, I'd probably say the same for a less-observant Jewish or less-traditional Catholic candidate who was solidly conservative on social issues. It's possible to support basic morality and decency for reasons other than religion, though I question whether that strategy works over the long term. The culture of the 1950s with its “civil religion” of the mainline denominations led to the cultural collapse of the 1960s, and there were reasons for that.
Homosexual mirage is not “law”.
It is judicial diktat.
Here's how the Iranians operate with a group designed to make sure their laws are in accord with Islamic principles:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/guardian_council.stm
Interestingly, even the Iranians understand the risk of a runaway judiciary and have six-year terms for their Council of Guardians.
That system seems to work in Iran. They do, after all, have a state religion and an entire religious infrastructure of clerics to educate its people in the principles of their state religion. While their Council of Guardians certainly represents some of the most conservative views in their country, they can make a good claim that their decisions are reflective of the principles on which their Islamic Revolution was fought and won.
We don't have that in America. Our Supreme Court has been taken over by elite jurists, all of whom are currently graduates of elite law schools, who simply do not reflect the general consensus of the American public or in any way seriously reflect a heritage of the American Revolution. After all, that's why liberals use the court system to get things done which they can't get done via the ballot box.
If even the Iranians have six-year terms for their equivalent to the Supreme Court, I don't see any way our system of having five out of nine black-robed justices being able to overturn laws is going to survive long-term if it lacks widespread public support for its decisions.
“NO PROTESTANTS NEED APPLY”
Yeah, the religious denomination is the reason, not the fact that Obama (a nominal Protestant) appointed two radical lesbians to the Court.
Or, with Ginsburg, you have a radical witch who rejects the teachings of her religion, appointed by a Protestant by the name of Bill Clinton.
And then Breyer (Bill Clinton) and last, but not least Kennedy (Ronald Reagan, also protestant).
I’m thinking lack of religion is the problem, not which religion.
I assume the Freeper didn't intend to sound anti-Jewish, but it's important that things like this not go without a response.
Conservatives have enough of a bad rap. We don't need to let Jewish voters who are honestly reconsidering their Democratic affiliation see things like this passed over in silence and think conservatives are “secret silent anti-Semites.”
That isn't true. Most conservatives I know would be a lot happier if we had Israel's prime minister instead of our current president. Conservative non-Jewish people need to stand up and speak out when we see things like this getting said.
I must be getting old but I can only name two Jewish members of the Supreme Court (Ginsburg and Kagan). No, I’m not going to Google it right now. Just winging it.
If Clarence Thomas is Jewish, that’s news to me, but, hey brother, welcome to the tribe. He’s very smart. Good for him.
Ginsburg is as Jewish as Karl Marx was (born a Jew, became/lived in a Lutheran family) and she is just as close to being a Marxist as to any other identification.
Kagan - a total waste. Weak-minded.
Sotomayor - Too wrapped up in being a “ whatever Latina” to be an objective judge.
Roberts - All I can say about him is “WTF was he thinking”?
Breyer - Is he Jewish? Was the ice-cream named after him? I don’t care. He’s a constitutionally loose cannon and that hurts America.
Alito - Italian. Assume he’s not Amish.
Scalia - Sounds like the name of an Italian opera, so I’ll go with Italian Catholic. The man is really smart.
There have been smart/good Jewish Supreme Court justices (Cardoza, for one) and some not so smart but at least sane (Goldberg). At least the cared for America which is more than I can say about many of today’s SC justices, regardless of religion.
The bad rap against conservatives doesn't come out of thin air. And the media only reports one side.
Remember, Cardozo was also the first Hispanic Justice, till Carter decided that Portugal wasn't part of Hispania after 2000 years, those of Portuguese or Brazilian heritage need apply no longer. Hispanic, it's a silly concept anyway
Breyer is Jewish.
I’m sorry for that!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.