Cheddar Politics takes a look at how a controversial term for the Supreme Court and all-time low in public confidence will impact the Court going forward. Reporter Katie Barlow weighs in on whether SCOTUS is being perceived as a political rather than a legal institution. 

Cheddar Politics

Supreme Court Reaches All-Time Low in Public Confidence

Welcome back to cheddar politics. The Supreme Court ended a controversial term last thursday with its lowest level of public confidence in history, according to a gallup poll from early last month joining us. Now to give us some insight into what this means for the court. Is Katie Barlow, friend of cheddar and journalist and lawyer who covers the Supreme Court for independent news sites, blogs and Fox five in Washington D. C. Thank you so much for joining us again. I want to jump right into these numbers from the gallup poll conducted on june 1st. These new results show only one in four americans has confidence in the Supreme Court. This is an all time low. Do you see this level of distrust as a short term issue or do you think that because the court is so much more conservative will remain a lot more polarizing to the american public? Well, I certainly suspect it's not a short term response to a pole like that. Especially given that that poll was conducted in early june before the end of the court's term when it hands down typically some of its most controversial decisions this term without exception. Perhaps one of the most controversial terms in recent history handing down major decisions not just on abortion, but on guns and a decision that will impact climate change as well. So I do expect that that sentiment about the court will continue because the court has become entrenched in our national political conversation in a way that it hasn't been in recent decades when we're talking about abortion rights, were also talking about how the justices are appointed, we've had some very high profile appointments and confirmations recently that have really grabbed the public's attention and invited them into that process more so in recent years. So it's just a part and deeply entrenched in this national political conversation that we're having about the court about its role. And people are going to continue to talk about the court, that's not going to stop now that they have issued. You know, these major high profile decisions. So I would expect that sentiment uh to continue. Unsurprisingly, republicans still maintain about the same level of confidence in the Supreme Court, but democrats and independents, their confidence has has ticked down and as you mentioned, will likely continue to do so, do you think this indicates that the court is becoming more of an actual political body rather than just as you mentioned, part of the political zeitgeist, but that it is actually political in nature, which it was never intended to be right. So, the founders envisioned the court as a separate third branch, who would not be subject to the political whims of the people in the same way that the political branches were, that the court needed to be insulated from politics in order to make decisions that were not necessarily politically expedient that were not necessarily politically popular, but that were square and right with the law. That was the ideal that the founders were kind of aiming for here. And I think when we look at the process and I just talked about confirmation, some of these individuals were political actors before they joined the court. Justice Kagan worked in the Obama administration. Justice Kavanaugh worked in an administration, as did Chief Justice roberts. So these were political actors before they joined the court. And of course, if you ask them, they say, you know, we wear black robes because we speak for the law, our job is to interpret the law. We are not acting as individuals and we're certainly not acting as political actors. But I think that there is an important conversation to be had about who the individual justices are, the type of work that they're doing. And I think you're right to point out that perhaps it's not a new concept that there are, you know, political overtones that happen at the court or even outright political moves. Um because, you know, look at where some of the justices came from before, that doesn't mean they walk in, put on the robe and then continue their um political work that they did before. It's of course, a different job. They take different oaths and they uphold different values and an entirely different branch of the constitution. But I think it's an important conversation for us to be talking about the nature of the body in the political conversation just as we do when they go through the confirmation process, appointed by a political leader of a party, the President and confirmed by the political legislature. Let's talk about the President because he has really used this this moment in history to talk less about the Supreme Court and more about legislation, what needs to be done in a legislative level. But he also of course enacted a commission to look into the judicial system and look into the court specifically. And while that commission did not ultimately recommend term limits or new expansion of the court, many of the members of that commission have since said that they've changed their minds, especially after the Dobbs decision. Do you think that there's going to be uh a push to make these kinds of reforms that will be enough of a push politically, that they will ultimately happen in this sort of interwoven separate but coequal branches system that we have. I'm just not seeing enough political will and political clout and the vote frankly to do anything that would amount to some of the major constitutional or number of justices framework to change any of those things. That were some of the biggies in that commission's work, there are some changes that are a little bit easier to make that open up transparency and um place, you know, things like subjecting the justices to an ethics code um or requiring cameras in the courtroom or things like that. Again, there are still some separation of powers concerns. Can one branch tell the other branch what to do and how to run themselves. Typically the justices um have been entirely in charge of how all that works. So to answer your question, I don't see enough political will in this moment in time. And and we thought right after the abortion decision came down right, President biden said we don't have the votes to to do anything about this right now. Um this is gonna be an election issue and the democrats seem to be shifting this to make this, you know, one of their main issues they're running on in november. Um and that is a political choice to be made by people who are much more politically savvy than I am. But any time there is a pivot to legislation or pivot to the power of the political branches. Then the next question by any journalist or anybody looking at this issue needs to be, well, what happens when it gets to the court? So even if something were to pass um and not just something over related to oversight of the court, but any piece of legislation. The next question is how does it sustain oversight and a deep look in a court case that would come before the Supreme Court. I think that's something that always needs to be a consideration for the political branches. Now going forward. It's really important perspective, thank you so much for coming back on Katie Katie Barlow is a journalist who covers the Supreme Court for Scotus blog and our court system for Fox five here in Washington.