Rasmussen: Only 29% of Obama supporters think Supreme Court should decide cases based on Constitution

posted at 12:30 pm on September 9, 2008 by Allahpundit

A friendly reminder from the Enlightened of how much more profound their respect for the rule of law is than yours, to be filed away for the next time one of them deigns to lecture you about Bush’s constitutional apostasy.

During his acceptance speech last night at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota, John McCain told the audience, “We believe in a strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, the rule of law, and judges who dispense justice impartially and don’t legislate from the bench.” Most American voters (60%) agrees and says the Supreme Court should make decisions based on what is written in the constitution, while 30% say rulings should be guided on the judge’s sense of fairness and justice. The number who agree with McCain is up from 55% in August.

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

Better yet, file this away for the next time some conservative asks you why he should turn out to vote for a guy who supports amnesty. So alarming is it that even TNR’s wringing its hands: “Now, since it seems unlikely that many Americans spend much time weighing the relative merits of different methods of judicial decisionmaking, it’s a fairly safe bet that voters are largely reflecting the rhetoric they hear from political elites…” Exit question: What rhetoric from The One could his disciples possibly be “reflecting” here?

Update: Headlines comments imported.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

What is “social justice”?
BobMbx on September 9, 2008 at 12:52 PM

Read The Gulag Archipelago.

RushBaby on September 9, 2008 at 1:25 PM

One of the best things the Founding Fathers gave to this Nation was The Constitution.

The fact that we still have the same Constitution since 1787 says something important.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land.

From it stems every other aspect of law, governance and the Rights of citizens. Which is why, and of course you guys know this, the only document ANY Supreme Court decision can be based on is the Constitution.

But, for the Left, the Dems, that 71% of Obama supporters, they want to do it a different way. Let’s make it a living document. Let’s base USSC decisions on what the Euros “feel” or what the enviro’s “believe” or what the Lightworker tells us. Let’s not be judgemental. All cultures are equal. Let’s make our laws so that other countries won’t hate us. All forms of governance are of the same value…except for those nasty selfish conservatives…and “our” supreme court will put an end to those nasty haters.

Dangerous ground. Deadly ground.

If for no other reason than to protect, and defend, the Constitution of the United States, no matter how much you simply cannot stand McCain because your guy got squeezed out in the primaries…how can any thinking, rational American vote for anyone else but McCain?

coldwarrior on September 9, 2008 at 1:27 PM

What is “social justice”?
BobMbx on September 9, 2008 at 12:52 PM

Social Justice:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=154962F8-7FF3-4B63-B37F-CC3921DCF621

Hannibal Smith on September 9, 2008 at 1:45 PM

We should be so proud of our government run school system. They are exceeding everyone’s expectations.

In Washington, that is.

TheHat on September 9, 2008 at 1:46 PM

The fact that we still have the same Constitution since 1787 says something important.

coldwarrior on September 9, 2008 at 1:27 PM

This pisses liberals off, too – the few that have any concept of different forms of governance, at least. They think that we are taunting France (which is on its 5th republic, already) by being so stable with our structure. They want us to trash a few Constitutions, just so that France won’t feel so pathetic by comparison. Liberals hate winners.

progressoverpeace on September 9, 2008 at 1:48 PM

“Most American voters (60%) agrees and says the Supreme Court should make decisions based on what is written in the constitution, while 30% say rulings should be guided on the judge’s sense of fairness and justice.

I’m more stunned at the 60% number than I am the 29%. That pretty much means that 40% of the voters in this country don’t believe in our constitution. That also means that the 40% are insane!

orlandocajun on September 9, 2008 at 1:49 PM

So many?

Akzed on September 9, 2008 at 1:51 PM

Just curious, how many of the 29% happened to have actually taken the time to read the Constitution?

pilamaye on September 9, 2008 at 1:57 PM

“If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that’s the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court.”

Exit answer: existential angst.

Great big churning pools of relativism & rebellion. It’s at the heart of liberalism. Yet, ironically, only an anointed paternal/maternal figure can properly understand & moderate.

A classic ‘lost boys syndrome’.

The libs flock to it, and demand ‘the one’, or whomever to fix it all ’cause that’s what mommy did. Only it’s played out in a perverse worship of celebrity cult chic.

Sacrilege if you dare to criticize. And don’t confuse the nutroots with facts.

I think there’s a big disconnect between Barry’s world of theory & academics, and the mean street waltz that a lot of his followers dance. Mob rule. That is their constitution. Denver & St. Paul were illustration of the principle.

Contrary opinions or philosophies will not be tolerated. Nutroots shout. Demonstrate. Harass. Assault. Vandalize & steal. Politics of personal destruction is the rule. Reasoned debate is the exception.

But Barry doesn’t get it. He’s expendable to them. Maddening crowds and adoring fans are fickle that way.

The rule of Law, not men used to be a high ideal proudly taught to school children everywhere. We have a Republic based on such things. Not perfect but the ideal is there to be played out by decent people. We have a Republic – if we can hold onto it, and not let the mean streets trample it under foot.

locomotivebreath1901 on September 9, 2008 at 1:59 PM

What is “social justice”?
I’m sure it is among the things that black liberation theology demands from God before they will begin negotiations with Him.

snaggletoothie on September 9, 2008 at 2:02 PM

Obama says terrorist have “legitimate” claims.

(No, I’m not kidding)

Maxx on September 9, 2008 at 1:25 PM

Ron Paul must’ve influenced him

jp on September 9, 2008 at 2:06 PM

Only 29% of Obama supporters think Supreme Court should decide cases based on Constitution

I guess that means that 71% of Hussein’s own supporters thought that he wasted his time in law school – (allegedly) studying a document that they don’t even think means anything. Hmm.

progressoverpeace on September 9, 2008 at 2:07 PM

What is “social justice”?
BobMbx on September 9, 2008 at 12:52 PM

BobMbx:

Blaming one’s problems on either: a) Whitey; b) “The Man”; c) your terrible childhood (so your parents in essence); d) the cops; e) Reagan, Bush I and Bush II; f) western civilization in general and the United States in particular; g) racism (both overt and subliminal); h) immigration policies that are actually enforced; i) lack of state run health care; j) lack of state run child care; k) anti abortionists that forced me to have unprotected sex with anyone, anytime; l) drug laws; m) corporate greed and multinationals; n) too little welfare; o) the military or; p) some combination of the above. Note that the combination can and usually does change depending on the particular problem or moral failing. As personal responsibility is never an issue fixing, or better yet eliminating, (a) through (p) above will lead to social justice. This can only be done if wealth is redistributed, not created mind you but redistributed, from those who worked hard for it to those that because of (a)-(p) above, have none.

In short: I have no money because I don’t want to work and you have money which is your fault and an injustice to me. I want money, I don’t want to work, so I’ll take yours by any means possible and that is justice for me.

This is, or some slight variation thereof, is what you pay huge sums of money to have liberal professors indoctrinate your children with.

For a recent example of this done on a large scale, take RushBaby’s advice above and read “The Gulag Archipelago”.

I hope this helps.

Next question…….

Bubba Redneck on September 9, 2008 at 2:07 PM

Have to share this…

Have had a little home repair going on for the last two days. One of the painters asked me what I was typing so feverishly on the computer. I showed him that 1:27 post. He showed the other guys.

Three more votes for McCain!

…and these guys are union.

coldwarrior on September 9, 2008 at 2:11 PM

Just curious, how many of the 29% happened to have actually taken the time to read the Constitution?

pilamaye on September 9, 2008 at 1:57 PM

None.

Bubba Redneck on September 9, 2008 at 2:31 PM

What is “social justice”?
I’m sure it is among the things that black liberation theology demands from God before they will begin negotiations with Him.

snaggletoothie on September 9, 2008 at 2:02 PM

It ain’t God’s fault, it’s Whitey’s.

Bubba Redneck on September 9, 2008 at 2:32 PM

…and these guys are union.

coldwarrior on September 9, 2008 at 2:11 PM

As a member of a union, I still don’t understand why unions seem to want to continue to allign themselves with these useless tools. Every time they propose a new regulation that makes it harder for corporations and small business owners to keep providing jobs, they are just shooting themselves in the foot. Hell, just take a look at what the greens are doing to the oil, gas and mining industries for an example, opposing new job creation because they ‘believe’ that the great big fusion reactor in the sky has less of an effect on our climate than us humans.

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on September 9, 2008 at 2:36 PM

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on September 9, 2008 at 2:36 PM –

Add to that the willingness of so many Dems to sanction illegal imigration. One would think the unions would be all over this. Jobs are being lost daily because illegals easily undercut local wages in the building trades and a lot of other trades. Day laborers and longer term illegal employees most often paid in cash, most often do not demand health care coverage, most often make no bones about worker’s comp, and all the rest. Meanwhile, as one of the painters said, American workers, union members, are unemployed because there is no work for them.

That’s sounds like a real winning ticket…prevent investment and growth of industry and business, and then prevent employment of legal workers, non-union and union alike.

Yet, the Dems have the unions in their pockets and the unions have the Dems in their pockets.

coldwarrior on September 9, 2008 at 2:56 PM

Stop mocking the Constitution, ehm, Palin?

Seixon on September 9, 2008 at 4:37 PM

What is “social justice”?

BobMbx on September 9, 2008 at 12:52 PM

Read it. Understand it.

Jaibones on September 9, 2008 at 4:53 PM

Obama on the Constitution. From:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/9/0451/30890/148/591748

“The reason that you have this principle is not to be soft on terrorism. It’s because that’s who we are. That’s what we’re protecting,” Obama said, his voice growing louder and the crowd rising to its feet to cheer. “Don’t mock the Constitution. Don’t make fun of it. Don’t suggest that it’s not American to abide by what the founding fathers set up. It’s worked *pretty well* for over 200 years.”

dtestard on September 9, 2008 at 5:12 PM

Sounds like communism to me.

madmonkphotog on September 9, 2008 at 8:17 PM

The problem is that Liberals are clueless. On all topics. Especially on History and how and why the United States was formed, structured and built. They do not understand the Constitution. They do not understand division of power.

Clueless. Moonbats.

This is why debating them is so very annoying.

Montana on September 9, 2008 at 9:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2