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.
That’s not at all what they’re saying, IHeartCheese is saying you, the citizen, don’t have power over the SCOTUS.
But you’d be right as in both sides are ideological, how else do you think they decide which interpretation to use if not by ideology?
Or are you one of those libs who doesn’t think they have ideology?
This comment really feels like “I’m making all my decisions based on ideology therefore everyone does”
Do you just do things entirely at random with no input from your understanding of the world?
No? Then congrats, you’ve got ideology. I’m gonna assume it’s liberalism, since they’re typically the only ones both dumb and arrogant enough to think they’re not only non-political, but non-ideological.
I am definitely saying the liberals are more likely to be impartial.
liberals tend to favour fairness of outcome, not the conservative fairness of opportunity. Hence they are better able to better put themselves in other people’s shoes and go against their core beliefs (ideology) if that means a failed outcome for other people.
You’re confusing liberals and socialists. Here’s Liberalism: A counter-history, which examines the history and evolution of liberalism. It contextualizes both the historical promotion of political rights and seeming contradictions like their removal under liberalism.
And you’re not trying to deflect from your original argument you were making.
A text book definition of a word vs what people behind a political party in a specific country are very different things.
I stand by what I’ve said, American conservatives tend to assume that American liberals do what a conservative would have done. In this case be unable to be impartial and make decisions based on their own ideology.
An American liberal is more likely to be able to be impartial than a conservative.
Have a good life.
We’re getting away from the main point.
non-ideological judgement is impossible because “impartially” applying for example, textualism is still ideological, because the choice to use textualism vs any other method is ideological.