Why running against the Supreme Court just might work for Obama
Some time between now and July 4, the Supreme Court will hand down two rulings — one on the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care law, the other on Arizona’s immigration law — that could have genuine impact on the battle for the White House this fall.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and Associate Justice Elena Kagan attend U.S. President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech on January 24, 2012 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)The tea-leave reading of how the Court will rule — and, to be clear, this is guesswork at best — seems to suggest that they may well strike down the health care law and uphold Arizona’s measure, a dual decision that would widely be seen as a victory for conservatives and a defeat for President Obama.
In the immediate aftermath of the oral arguments in front of the Court on health care, President Obama issued something close to a challenge to the Justices.
He said:
“I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years, what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”
That wasn’t the first time Obama broke the (unwritten) political rule of not challenging the Court. In his 2011 State of the Union address, Obama went after the Citizens United ruling, which led Justice Samuel Alito to shake his head in disagreement and so on and so forth.
Now, we’ve long believed that attacks against the Supreme Court are largely meaningless in the context of political campaigns for two reasons.
The first is that no one — or at least very few people — have any sort of working knowledge of the Court. They don’t think about it and, therefore, building a campaign around attacking it is fruitless.
This one chart from the Pew Research Center tells you everything you need to know about the average person’s knowledge of the Court:
So, yeah.
The second reason we’ve long dismissed attacks on the Court is that it is typically one of — if not the — most revered of public institutions. People may hate politicians, Congress and, naturally, the media. But they love them some dark-robed Justices.
Or not. Or at least not as much.
Two national polls released within the last month suggest that the unimpeachably high regard with which many people once held the Supreme Court is slipping somewhat.
In an NBC-Wall Street Journal survey released this week, those people saying they have a “great deal” of confidence in the Court dipped to its lowest point in more than a decade.
Below is a chart detailing the percentages of people who say they have a “great deal” and “very little” confidence in the Court in a series of NBC-WSJ polls since 2000.
And it’s not just the NBC-WSJ poll. In a Pew survey released earlier this month just 52 percent of people said they had a favorable view of the Court — a quarter-century low. (The Court’s high point in Pew polling was in July 1994 when 80 percent viewed the institution favorably.)
There’s lots of potential reasons for the shift toward a more negative view of the Court. As Pew documents, Republicans were more likely to view the Court negatively in 2009 and 2010 as President Obama appointed Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the body. And, there has been a general decline in the public’s faith in traditional societal institutions in recent years as everything from the government to Wall Street has struggled mightily.
But, regardless of the reasoning, the declining favorability of the Court does give Obama a potential opening if both the health care and immigration rulings go against him.
In the Pew poll, one in three Democrats said that the oral arguments around the health care law made them less favorably inclined to the Court; just 14 percent of Republicans and 16 percent of independents said the same.
What those numbers suggest is that while running against the Court probably won’t sway undecided voters, it could well be a potent way for Obama to rev up the Democratic base in advance of November.
It seems that in this hyper-partisan political environment even the Supreme Court is fair game. So don’t be surprised to see President Obama ramp up his anti-Court rhetoric if and when they rule against him later this summer.
- Spam
- Obscene
- Duplicate
Blog Contributors
Chris Cillizza

Chris Cillizza is founder and editor of The Fix, a leading blog on state and national politics. He is the author of The Gospel According to the Fix: An Insider’s Guide to a Less than Holy World of Politics and an MSNBC contributor and political analyst. He also regularly appears on NBC and NPR’s The Diane Rehm Show. He joined The Post in 2005 and was named one of the top 50 journalists by Washingtonian in 2009.
Juliet Eilperin

Juliet Eilperin covers the White House for the Washington Post. She served as the Post's House of Representatives reporter from 1998-2004, covering the impeachment of Bill Clinton, lobbying, legislation, and five national congressional campaigns. Since 2004 she has been one of the country’s leading reporters covering the environment, reporting on science, policy and politics in areas including climate change, oceans, and air quality. She is the author of two books, "Fight Club Politics: How Partisanship is Poisoning the House of Representatives," and "Demon Fish: Travels Through the Hidden World of Sharks." Follow her on Twitter.
Ed O’Keefe

Ed O’Keefe covers Congress and politics for the Washington Post. He previously covered the 2008 and 2012 campaigns and reported on federal agencies and federal employees as author of The Federal Eye blog. Follow Ed on Twitter.
Aaron Blake

Aaron Blake covers national politics at the Washington Post, where he writes regularly for “The Fix,” the Post’s top political blog. A Minnesota native and summa cum laude graduate of the University of Minnesota, Aaron has also written about politics for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and The Hill newspaper. Aaron and his wife, Danielle, live in Annandale, Va. Follow him on Twitter.
Sean Sullivan

Sean Sullivan covers national politics for “The Fix.” Prior to joining the Washington Post in the summer of 2012, Sean was the editor of Hotline On Call, National Journal Hotline’s politics blog. He has also worked for NHK Japan Public Broadcasting and ABC News. Sean is a graduate of Hamilton College, where he received a degree in Philosophy. He lives in Washington, D.C. Follow Sean on Twitter.
Scott Clement

Scott Clement is a survey research analyst for Capital Insight, the independent polling group of Washington Post Media. Scott specializes in public opinion about politics, election campaigns and public policy. He helps design and analyze all Washington Post polls, including the Washington Post-ABC News poll. Follow Scott on Twitter.
Rachel Weiner

Rachel Weiner covers national politics for Post Politics and The Fix. She came to the Washington Post in 2010 as a political web editor and anchored the Post's 2012 election blog. She was previously a web editor at The Huffington Post. Follow her on Twitter.













Loading...
Comments