Poll: Health care ruling turns Republicans against Supreme Court
Chief Justice John Roberts is seen during a group portrait at the Supreme Court Building in Washington Oct. 8, 2010.
/ AP PhotoThe Supreme Court on Thursday announced its decision to uphold the law nearly in its entirety, with five justices voting in its favor and four against. Chief Justice John Roberts, who has largely voted with conservatives in the past, surprised many by casting the decisive fifth vote siding with the more liberal justices. He also wrote the decision for the majority.
The CNN poll, conducted June 28-July 1, suggests the health care decision - and Roberts' breaking with party lines - made a deep impression on Republicans and Democrats alike. Among Democrats, the court's approval rating jumped by 23 percent, from 50 to 73 percent, after the decision. Among Republicans it fell by almost as much - 21 percent - to just 31 percent overall. Approval among independents ticked up by 5 percent following the decision.
Public opinion of Roberts has taken a similar turn. Forty-one percent of respondents in the poll said they had a favorable view of the chief justice, 24 percent had an unfavorable view, 21 percent said they had never heard of him, and 14 percent had no opinion. Most Democrats - 51 percent - were in the camp supporting Roberts, while only 30 percent of Republicans felt the same way.
When it comes to the law itself, 50 percent say they agree with the court's ruling, while 49 percent disagree. Those percentages also largely follow party lines, with most Democrats supporting the decision and most Republicans disagreeing with it.
"As recently as April, Republicans and Democrats had virtually identical positive opinions on the Supreme Court. But not any more," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said of the poll. "That's the biggest change that the court decision has created."
In recent years, Americans have increasingly seen the Supreme as politically polarized. Republican-appointed judges have largely voted in line with the views of Republican politicians, while Democrat-appointed judges tend to vote in line with Democrats. After the health care decision was unveiled last week, Democrats welcomed Roberts' vote as a sign that the court might be less politically-driven than many had come to assume.
On Sunday, CBS News' Jan Crawford reported that Roberts had initially planned to vote against the law, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberal justices to uphold the law.
Crawford writes that Roberts may have been swayed by reports warning that the court - and Roberts' reputation along with it - would be damaged if the health care law, or major parts of it, was overturned.
"It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law. At least one conservative justice tried to get him to explain it, but was unsatisfied with the response, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation," Crawford wrote.
Popular in Politics
- Obama prom pictures surface 117 Comments
- Is President Obama ending the war on terror? 148 Comments
- Now, some unions upset over Obamacare
- IRS official Lois Lerner placed on leave 127 Comments
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen.
- Rand Paul uses 2016 bully pulpit to push Obama on drones
- Protester heckles Obama during counterterrorism speech Play Video
- Obama to tour Jersey Shore with Gov. Christie
Repeal Republicans 2012!
Democrats, not surprisingly, are overwhelmingly likely to support the idea of moving on (82 percent), but they are joined by 51 percent of independents and 26 percent of Republicans.
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8329-F.PDF
-----
Sorry republicans, but even mcconnell sees that it's an uphill battle for repeal without any replacement, and with the majority of Americans against the GOP need for repeal, it's done and we will move forward!
First, the tax/penalty applies only to those who do not have insurance or who have no mechanism to purchase it. It seems like a huge tax hike, but in reality it is the accumulation of small amounts of money paid by a huge number of people who do not already pay into health care, but who will use hospitals for emergencies or serious illnesses; this is what drives up the cost of medical care and insurance premiums.
Second, the government is not "doling out" services any more than private insurance companies. As it stands now, an insurance company can refuse to cover medical services for whatever reason they choose. Under the new health care law, no insurance company, be it private or public, will be allowed to deny coverage, charge higher premiums for those with more serious illnesses, or cancel policies. The new law protects patients, and that is the bottom line of this whole endeavor.
You can't trust a person like Roberts.
Wait and see.
I expect he will make decisions in the future that will displease liberals and conservatives, but I do not believe it is because of a character defect as you imply.
He has proven himself a principled man who is aware that the decisions he makes have lasting repercussions.
And that is a GOOD THING.
Your hate is making you ill.
While the Founders accepted outcome inequality, they emphasized -- over and over -- that its legitimacy hinged on subjecting everyone to the law's mandates on an equal basis.
Jefferson wrote that the essence of America would be that "the poorest laborer stood on equal ground with the wealthiest millionaire, and generally on a more favored one whenever their rights seem to jar."
Benjamin Franklin warned that creating a privileged legal class would produce "total separation of affections, interests, political obligations, and all manner of connections" between rulers and those they ruled.
Tom Paine repeatedly railed against "counterfeit nobles," those whose superior status was grounded not in merit but in unearned legal privilege.
After all, one of their principal grievances against the British King was his power to exempt his cronies from legal obligations. Almost every Founder repeatedly warned that a failure to apply the law equally to the politically powerful and the rich would ensure a warped and unjust society.
In many ways, that was their definition of tyranny.
You know - like you just did! Somehow I just don'r see that as a rebuttal of anything except common sense!