February 16, 2008
-
Democracy
I love democracy. A question for you though.
- The President of the United States is democratically elected and has a 28% approval rating.
- Congress is democratically elected and has a 20% approval rating.
- The Supreme Court is the least democratic branch of government and yet has over a 50% approval rating.
You can quibble and say that the Electoral College means that the Presidential elections aren’t purely democratic. No matter how you cut it though, the Presidency and the Congress will always be more democratic than the Supreme Court.
How is it that the least democratic branch of government is the most popular?
Comments (51)
Here’s the thing- the Supreme Court is filled with people so smart and wise beyond questioning that we have no choice but to respect them. They uphold the most basic ideals of our country, and of our Founders. The President? Well that’s just a popularity contest. We expect the world of our President, and when they don’t deliver everything they unrealistically promise and more, we dislike them.
We vote based on the emotions the campaign staffs carefully cultivate in us, but we give respect based on far more conscious processes.
Of course, it may also be that we don’t know nearly as much about the Supreme Court, and the fact that they are right beyond question- no one but themselves has ever been able to undo something they’ve decided.
^In other words, they are the only ones at that level with any brains.
Perhaps because you have to proven an ability to accomplish something to get into the Supreme Court and once there you don’t have to worry about campaigns to stay there. Both combine to give you people who know how to work and have little else to do but work.
How was the bibim nengmyun ?
Maybe their last choice is to decide that they don’t want the choice.
People are fickle and uneducated and actually “approval ratings” have almost zero immediate impact on our lives.
I don’t trust polls, I ignore the government. I work, I guess I pay for it all.
There is no escape from the culture of mediocrity.
maybe because what the supreme court does and rules on is not as much *out there* as what we hear about the president and congress. i try to keep up with their rulings and reasons, and have this respect for them that baffles even me. but polls are different, not always reflecting the actual situation. maybe? not sure. but it’s a good question.
Most Americans don’t know what the Supreme Court judges do, that’s why. I’m not saying that I don’t like the Supreme Court, but the people polled most likely weren’t very informed on the matter, regardless of whichever way they voted.
I don’t trust polls.
Because until recently they have adhered to the constitution and more because they publish dissenting opinions.
Reading through cases one can get a real sense of how carefully they weigh everything they are given. The Supreme Court though, in the last 50-60 years has been steadily declining in its quality of discernment precisely because a standing president chooses candidates. Taking that into consideration, it is no wonder that last summer they made it a constitutional law to hurt women (and fetuses) with punitive religious zealotry. (Yeah, nobody noticed. TV writers weren’t on strike yet.) Ginsburg tried to save some semblance of humanity for our country but she failed. It takes a careful reading to understand exactly what precedent was set and it is terrifying, but it won’t seem so unless the dissenting opinion is read and the whole is digested.
I have lost a great deal of respect for the institution; however, that they still allow the voices of dissent and reason to be a part of our national record is something I have to honor. I fear it is only a matter of time though before that last vestige of honor is a memory.
One last reason they have a higher approval rating and probably the most significant: Americans are, for the most part, too stupid and lazy or too over worked to pay attention to what the court is doing and will just give them a nod so they do not have to deal with it all. The rulings used to be written with hard to access vocabulary, but there has been a substantial effort to make it more accessible to the common man. But the common man is vulgar and/or too busy to read. Myself included most of the time.
@Boowasborn - What do you mean when by, “The Supreme Court though, in the last 50-60 years has been steadily declining in its quality of discernment precisely because a standing president chooses candidates.”
Because court shows are people’s favorite on TV.
lol @ squeakysoul’s summary
perhaps our current prez and congress are just doing a poor job
I’m not really into any of that kind of stuff.
i think you neep to take timing into consideration… bush has been in office for nearly 4 years since the last election. back when he was re-elected his approval rating was more than likely over 50%. i personally don’t agree with the electoral college system, but i think there have only been two or three times when the winner lost the popular vote but still won the election. that’s why their terms are as long as they are, so if the popularity dwindles America can make a change.
I think the Court’s function is different from the Legislative and Executive branches. The President and Congress have more of a direct role in leading the day-to-day affairs of this country. The Court’s role is mainly to interpret the laws that the other branches have already passed. Thus maybe people don’t judge them in the same way as they do their immediate representatives.
SammyStorm wrote more or less what I was thinking. The Supreme Court doesn’t make or execute laws, and has very little to do with that part of the process. They only come into play once someone has questioned whether a law or practice is legal or not. Plus, they get to choose which issues they’re going to deal with.
@john -
Our presidents have been . . . not super great and nor have been their advisors. I liked that you pointed out that our democracy is “democracy” but still representative of the people. It is. And the majority rule in democracy has hurt this country in so many ways and electing poor presidents who place poor justices (poor in ability to reason or in integrity) on the bench is just one example of that.
I’m not all for ditching democracy, but I am a bit weary of being lead by a bell curve of passion players. If you read the language of some of the justices’ opinions (they don’t write them but they approve and read them of course) it clearly indicates at least to this language lover, that less ethic and more antic has been in play. It’s not just current justices and it is not all of them. There is still some great expression being added to our permanent record in both ruling opinions and dissenting ones, but along with those there is also language that has proven to be divisive and demeaning to us all. They set a tone and we want that tone to be better than ourselves, unfortunately, it is merely reflective. We can do better.
Its because people who vote are retarded. Most of us vote for candidates for reasons that has no importance, mainly on how the candidates present themselves to the public. Its a popularity contest.
The word ‘democracy’, we can divide it in ‘demo crazy’
I didn’t support absolutism, but I don’t think democracy is a good solution.
Most of the people voted blindly, the reasons for them to vote someone can be very simple, may be accoriding to his racial, to his fame, to his party,etc.
That’s even more ironic when you consider that the Supreme Court is directly responsible for the fact that Bush made it into office in the first place.
Haha – rather ironic, huh? I guess that’s what happens when you have Bush in office?
RYC – thanks
that cheered me up
I don’t think the Supreme Court receives near as much media attention as the President or Congress in general. I think the main reason for that is that people know there’s really no way to change the Supreme Court so they just live with it. So the focus goes to what can be changed – the President & Congress - in order to eventually change the Supreme Court. Interesting post! Pete
sex-messaging the pages? text-y.
justice scalia’s 13-page dissenting opinion? not as text-y.
if we could get souter or ginsburg inside a love triangle with a clerk, that would be hot. and their approval rating might take a dip.
or i’m thinking bedroom night-vision tape with chief justice roberts and a semi-bald britney spears.
think of the ratings.
in a way, we also elected the supreme court justices, being that we elect the electoral college reps who elect the president who appoints them.
America sucks.
@black_lie - “perhaps our current prez and congress are just doing a poor job”
I completely agree.
are they asking only voters or are they asking people who don’t vote as well as the people who do? i had a friend who actually had to come up with polls and the results her magazine wanted so you really can’t trust all those things. she’d ask people she thought would answer one way so that she could get the outcome the paper wanted.
People don’t really give a lot of thought to the Supreme Court. Sometimes they make us mad, but mostly they’re under the radar. Oh, and people probably don’t realize that they’re paying the justices’ salaries. If they thought it through (“Hey, Scalia! You work for me!“), then they might get as worked up as they do about the more spotlighted branches of the government.
Hey John I have a question off the blog topic…
I turned 18 about a week ago (Feb 7th). Now, I don’t have a credit card (German debit), and I live in Germany, and I don’t have fax.
Snail mail costs a LOT of money to send from Germany to the States.
So is there anyway I can print the form out, fill it out, scan it in, and EMAIL it with a copy of my passport as proof? I personally think it would be a great idea for Xanga to offer eMail as an option for the age verification. If you’re gonna allow fax, right? Same difference, as long as there’s a signature. And it would save me a heck of a lot of money.
-Cryssie Leah
PS if you’re the wrong person to ask, whom should I ask?
quite the question john. got me thinking for a bit. anyways, there is a huge difference between the first two branches and the latter branch. even though you can argue that all 3 create “policy” for this country, only the first two really take any active measures in everyday changes while the judicial branch works with what they have.
on top of that, you rare ever read about supreme court rulings even though there are new ones all the time. however, none of them are really huge cases and therefore, do not warrant media coverage. people aren’t exposed to them enough and when asked to give their opinion about them, they might unconsciously compare them to the other two branches, which give them a favorable rating.
-ray leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Perhaps it is the knowledge that a race of first-past-the-post is only a nod to democracy anyway, so wtf? Now, if it was proportional representation then you might find your figures completely different.
The wise Supreme Court represents the law of the land and presidents and members of the houses (a.k.a. “little royals” and not always too bright) often think they’re above it…and we don’t like the latter attitude too much.
That’s a common perception anyway.
Because people are fools and elections are flawed. Great question though!
It is because they make decisions and don’t have to actually lead anything. So unless they are complete idiots, they will be respected more than a politician. You put those same people in a political office and their approval rating will fall.
well the reason why you don’t see them come up that often, especially in the news, is because they are always the last “check” in the 3 branches of gov’t. You’ll hear issues about the house/senate disagreeing over a bill, and then that bill never gets passed. Or, if a bill does pass, a president may veto it. This is all done without the involvement of the judicial branch. Of course the only time they jump in is when the president DOES sign a bill, and they deem it to be unconstitutional… or any other trials that’s worthy of a supreme court look.
Yeah, they’re supposed to follow the constitution, but who knows, they’re not perfect either.
i agree that it’s kind of ironic how our 3 branches play out — esp. since justices have life terms and therefore don’t need to respond to public opinion as much as those who have to worry about reelection. but i think that the supreme court has a job much easier than that of the president or even congress — justices need to interpret the constitution, and they realize that they should focus on the wording, rather than their own opinions. (though those do play a role) on the other hand the executive and legislative branches have to enforce and initiate laws, which is likely to offend people, for lack of a better term. those people who are voting in approval polls don’t represent all american people — if one were to take a true census of the population, numbers would be much higher i think. because those voting in these polls are a voluntary response sample — meaning they most likely have extreme opinions in order to take the time to go on these sites and vote. those who are uninformed or content with our government’s actions are less likely to go vote.
It could be because the United States is NOT a democracy. It is a Republic.
Because the democratic regime as a whole is suffering from a major crisis of legitimacy; therefore, the most democratic institution–Congress–is suffering the most from lack of “popularity.” Conversely the Supreme Court, as anti-democratic institution, suffers the least.
@Lady_Songbird - I appreciate the spirit of your comment, but must quibble with the letter of it. You are right only according to Madison’s republican/democracy distinction (most clearly elaborated in the Federalist papers); “democracy,” however, in the founding period had a much wider scope of meaning, especially in its connotations of “popular sovereignty.” Moreover, according to the republican theory of mixed regimes, the Senate would represent the aristocratic element and the House the democratic element; while this theory started to wane with the Federalists, certain founders–like John Adams–never stopped thinking in these terms. So once again, it’s not an either/or of republics and democracies. (All this paraphrases Gordon Wood’s opinions from “Creation of the American Republic.)
i’ll bet if harriet miers was confirmed the supreme court would be a lot less respected.
I think it is about placing blame. If I vote for (or against) a President, somehow he becomes “MINE” and I am more likely to approve or disapprove (depending on my vote) with what he is doing. But the supreme court is just there, so I actually have to base my opinions on the merit of what they do instead of the emotional value judgement.
I think it is because we like that they can go to work in bathrobes and still be important. WE all want that job!!!
The supreme court is not in the news every day… peoples opinions are generally manipulated by the press.
maybe you should consider toning down that love for democracy…
I can’t explain the phenomenon, but I know this: You’re lucky that Xangans didn’t vote you in as the Xanga head honcho. Otherwise, popularity-wise, you’d suck in their estimation as much as Congress and Pres. Bush does.
their work is the least publicized of all three branches. they are also the least well known branch.
Here’s the thing with “approval ratings” …. Who is being asked? Sometimes I think the media makes everything up. It’s like … they’re taking on the role of an attention craving child…. but with way too much power.
america is a republic, not a democracy.
nevermind, i should have read the comments more carefully.
First, we need to address the fact that this country was never intended to be a democracy… a true democracy is only one crazy step away from mob-rule and anarchy when you get right down to it. Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution will you find ANY reference to democracy; actually, it calls us a republic. Apparently, democrats (those who supported democracy) during the founding of our country were thought of as pandering “to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.” Rather eye-opening, don’t you think? The term “democracy” really didn’t come in to play as a description of our government until the horrible reign of Woodrow Wilson and later FDR with all their New Deal and Big Government programs.
As to why the stark difference in acceptance? Most likely because the executive and legislative branches ARE so much a popularity contest these days, that folks pay slightly more attention (which is still too limited to begin with) to the branches they can directly affect more than the branch of government they cannot.
I will agree with Boowasborn to a point: our recent presidents have not done a wonderful job in choosing our Supreme Court justices, with the exception of possibly George W. The idea, though, that “religious zealotry” was behind the Gonzales v. Carhart verdict and therefore proves poor choice of justices is ludicrous. While it truly should be left up to the states (abortion “rights,” etc.), religious zealotry has nothing to do with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That fetus/unborn child has every right to life. And what if it’s a girl??? Talk about women’s rights!
They aren’t in the media limelight nearly as much – and it’s not like a “boo” from the audience will change their status anyhow. I think most people simply “accept” the facts of the situation, knowing that they can’t change the people. But if Supreme Court people make poor choices - it likely reflects more poorly onto the ones who likely put them into that office.