Change: Supreme Court ratings jump to new high after ObamaCare arguments

posted at 12:11 pm on April 9, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Who said oral arguments and questions aren’t useful for Supreme Court cases?  A new Rasmussen poll shows approval ratings for the Supreme Court hitting a level not seen since 2009 after the intense coverage of oral arguments and questions from the justices in the ObamaCare cases held two weeks ago:

Just before the highly publicized hearing on the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care law, ratings for the U.S. Supreme Court had fallen to the lowest level ever measured by Rasmussen Reports. Now, following the hearings, approval of the court is way up.

Forty-one percent (41%) of Likely U.S. Voters now rate the Supreme Court’s performance as good or excellent, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. That’s up 13 points from 28% in mid-March and is the court’s highest ratings in two-and-a-half years.

Nineteen percent (19%) still rate the court’s work record as poor, unchanged from last month.

Let’s take a look at the internals of both the March and April polls to see the changes.  In March, 30% of Republicans rated the court as excellent or good, with 63% rating it as fair or poor.  Democrats were harsher in their critique at 26/66, close to independents’ 26/62, but all roughly within the margin of error.  This month, Democrats give the court a slightly worse 26/71, but Republicans now give the court a 54/41 positive rating, and independents a substantially improves 42/52.

Some of the other demographic changes are interesting as well.  A month ago, both men (25/68) and women (29/61) were deeply skeptical of the court’s performance.  Today, the court has improved among both — men at 43/55, women to 40/53, significant improvements both.  Approval has jumped among self-described conservatives from 30/64 to 60/35, while liberals went from a sour 30/60 to an even more sour 21/77.  Even the standing among moderates improved a bit, from 26/66 to 34/61.

This has some serious political implications, at least in the short term.  Some ObamaCare supporters have argued for impeaching the Supreme Court justices who vote to overturn the law, or have argued for imposition of term limits as a result of the decision.  Barack Obama opened up a line of pre-emptive attack that has received deafening criticism.  If these numbers hold up in an overturning of ObamaCare, attacking the Supreme Court looks like a very bad political play — even if it’s the only line of attack left.  The uptick in approval from independents shows that going on an offensive against the Supreme Court could very well marginalize Obama among unaffiliated voters and become a big electoral handicap for Obama in the fall — which he hardly needs this year as it is.


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

People hate the law and hate the mandate even more. Strike the steaming turd into oblivion.

Chuck Schick on April 9, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Taking issues seriously is liked by the public? Elites must be recoiling in horror.

rob verdi on April 9, 2012 at 12:13 PM

It’s amazing how popular it can be to actually listen to people’s disgust with larger and larger government.

beatcanvas on April 9, 2012 at 12:14 PM

In other news, Linda Greenhouse and Dahlia Lithwick suddenly depressed.

aunursa on April 9, 2012 at 12:14 PM

backfire!

screwauger on April 9, 2012 at 12:14 PM

This is why I don’t believe polls that show SCOAMF in a commanding lead over a republican candidate.

Every common sense indicator points to his being generally loathed

ironbill on April 9, 2012 at 12:14 PM

I heart Scalia.

entropent on April 9, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Is it just me, or is anyone else deeply disturbed that our Republic could be hanging by the thread of one vote?

How did we get here?

Man is not free unless government is limited – Ronald Reagan

Chip on April 9, 2012 at 12:15 PM

I’m still baffled as to why anyone would support a Communist like Obama, besides other communists, of course.

Badger40 on April 9, 2012 at 12:16 PM

Wait ’til we see the polls after they reject Obamacare outright! Through the roof.

indyvet on April 9, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Do even Democrats watch Obama’s tired speeches full of lies, victimhood and blame these days?

Like watching Al Jazeera without all of the lightheartedness.

NoDonkey on April 9, 2012 at 12:17 PM

What will be revealing will be the next rating after the decision is announced.

aunursa on April 9, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Special Prosecutor: Trayvon Martin case NOT going to grand jury.

Oh, shyt! Helter Skelter’s gonna break loose!

Resist We Much on April 9, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Wait ’til we see the polls after they reject Obamacare outright! Through the roof.

indyvet on April 9, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Don’t get ahead of yourself.

This thing is not in the bag yet.

Bitter Clinger on April 9, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Dear Liar can’t get rid of his Blackberry: RIM is close to bankruptcy.
Dear Liar demonizes the Supreme Court: S.Ct. approval rating rises.

Dear Liar is the anti-Midas, liberal4life hardest hit.

rbj on April 9, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Who said oral arguments and questions aren’t useful for Supreme Court cases?

I posted at least once in another thread this is the true value of oral arguments in today’s world. The average American is not going to read the hundreds of pages of briefs filed for this case. Oral arguments allow for the average person to get a good idea about what is being argued and why. The justices most likely were already convinced of a position prior to oral arguments regardless.

NotCoach on April 9, 2012 at 12:20 PM

People hate the law and hate the mandate even more. Strike the steaming turd into oblivion.

Chuck Schick on April 9, 2012 at 12:13 PM

I think Obama and the Democrats got greedy. Socialized medicine has been the holy grail of the left for so long they over-reached with Obamacare. Had they bullied through something without the individual mandate, they probably would have higher support numbers and a stronger case in the SCOTUS. But, so much of Obamacare depends on the mandate, they are toast if it falls because so much of the funding relies on forcing people to buy insurance (ultimately all run by the government). Conversely, if the mandate is held constitutional, voters will hate Obama and Dems even more even as they decide other things are legal under the commerce clause.

Happy Nomad on April 9, 2012 at 12:21 PM

The American people like it when at least one branch of the Federal Government takes the Constitution seriously? Huh. whodathunkit!

Weight of Glory on April 9, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Progs shouldn’t be surprised. In addition to not having the law on their side (outside of their echo chamber), the public has been against Obamacare since May, 2009. Take a look at these recent poll numbers from various polling outfits:

You’re Only Against The Obamacare Mandate Because There’s A Black Man Living In The White House And You Want To See Faux Hispanic – White Jews Shoot Blacks Wearing Hoodies, Who Are Armed Only With Skittles & Iced Teas! Don’t You Dare Claim Otherwise, You KKKrackers!

Even 56% of Democrats believe the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

Blaming “racist Americans” and “political hacks” on the Supreme Court for Democrats’ unconstitutional, unpopular law is just not going to work.

Resist We Much on April 9, 2012 at 12:21 PM

I’m more concerned that there is a poll for for SOCTUS ratings, although Damon Killian made a living from them.

BobMbx on April 9, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Resist We Much on April 9, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Kangaroo court here we come. Is the next step to somehow prevent a jury from hearing the case?

NotCoach on April 9, 2012 at 12:22 PM

I’m too smart for you guys.

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Can’t wait to see what the poll numbers will be like after their decision is handed down.

ButterflyDragon on April 9, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Imagine the polls when they completely strike down obamacare?

upinak on April 9, 2012 at 12:23 PM

In the meanwhile keep an eye on the goons in the WH.

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2012 at 12:23 PM

I posted at least once in another thread this is the true value of oral arguments in today’s world.

NotCoach on April 9, 2012 at 12:20 PM

I would argue that it depends on the case. The value in the Obamacare hearings is watching the absurdity of the Solicitor General making the case that forcing people to enroll in an insurance program under Obamacare is a tax, not a penalty, on day one in an effort to put off any ruling until 2015. Then on day two making the case that Obamacare is a penalty, not a tax, in order to justify this usurptation of the commerce clause. This was a teaching moment in what is wrong with this law.

Happy Nomad on April 9, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Conversely, if the mandate is held constitutional, voters will hate Obama and Dems even more even as they decide other things are legal under the commerce clause.

Happy Nomad on April 9, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Agreed- The June ruling will be win/win for the GOP, I just don’t know which is the bigger of the 2.

Strike it down- Obama will probably react stupidly and fire up the base

Uphold- That will really fire up the base, independents and some Democrats.

I don’t know if Romney can beat Obama yet, but Obama is certainly beatable. Whether or not he gets re-elected, Obama’s presidency is already done. His relationship with the GOP is so toxic and the moderate Dems won’t ever go out on a limb for him again after ObamaCare. Even if the Dems get back the house, I can’t imagine they’ll get 60 in the Senate ever again. Nothing will get done for 4 more years.

Chuck Schick on April 9, 2012 at 12:27 PM

I don’t think the approval rating is because they actually might disapprove obamacare.

what you did hear in the remarks is that the SUPRME COURT actually takes our liberty seriously.Even the liberal justices who like the law were skeptics of the individual mandate which is patently unconstitutional.

I think the mandate will go down at least 7-2.

However the rest of the law I don’t know.
the government can make changes to health care legally.

It will only go down if the court truly believes that it can’t survive without the mandates.

I think the liberal justices want the law even without the mandates.

gerrym51 on April 9, 2012 at 12:27 PM

He does have the Midas touch, everything he touches turns into a muffler.

D-fusit on April 9, 2012 at 12:28 PM

OK!…If Ed is going to be on fire like this…after a vacation…then he should go on more of them. There should be some kind of rule though that he check in once a day with an article. or at least start out our day with an Obamateurism (can be at noon or something!)…I missed the contact…and especially the Obamateurism’s!

KOOLAID2 on April 9, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Obama’s campaign team has floated various slogans, battle cries and opponents for the 2012 race.

So far, he has failed on all fronts to garner a ‘voting’ bloc and now we see that this inept and failure of an administration won on hype and hyperbole in 2008. Come November 2012, we will see the rest of the story.

I can’t wait, I knew running against the Supreme Court (that is what Obama was floating these past few weeks) was not going to be a winner. Let me see, he tried to run against Bush again and that was an Epic Fail. He has tried to run against Congress and that has failed. He was then going to try to run against the Supremes come the overturn and now we see that will fail.

Future is looking slightly brighter.

uhangtight on April 9, 2012 at 12:29 PM

“From Hope to Shame” — Obama 2012

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2012 at 12:30 PM

But, but….. Judicial Activism!

Scrappy on April 9, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Keep yapping odumbo…..just keep yapping.

The more you talk the better.

Tim_CA on April 9, 2012 at 12:30 PM

NotCoach on April 9, 2012 at 12:22 PM

I imagine that DOJ is looking hard at some kind of civil right’s charge. It can’t charge Zimmerman with murder because murder is a state crime, but it could charge him with a civil right’s violation that resulted in murder. The problem is that all of the evidence of racial profiling was manufactured by the media. It was the media’s “creation” that led to people getting riled up and DOJ becoming involved.

Obviously, there is no statute of limitations of murder so, if evidence comes to light that would prove a criminal mens rea on the part of Zimmerman or something other than self-defence, then the Special Prosecutor or State’s Attorney could still go to a grand jury.

There’s been a lot of noise made about Florida’s “stand your ground” law, but the way the facts are shaking out, it appears more a case of actual self-defence than “standing your ground.” There are eyewitnesses and physical evidence that supports Zimmerman.

Resist We Much on April 9, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Ask questions and the liberals become unhinged. Why are the SCOTUS ratings high, because they didn’t swallow the lies of a wannabe tyrant. Barry’s prize accomplishment stinks and is stupid in it’s premise of forced payment. So “I WILL NOT COMPLY” a famous founder said. I know not, what others will do, but as for me “Give me LIBERTY! or Give me DEATH” I choose, I decide what I will do. And I bow my knee to one Jesus. Never to a lying frauds like Little Barry and his ilk.

stormridercx4 on April 9, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Some ObamaCare supporters have argued for impeaching the Supreme Court justices who vote to overturn the law, or have argued for imposition of term limits as a result of the decision.

Impeachment and term limits are only considered when the decisions and positions of officials don’t comport with Liberal agenda. The will and supreme laws of the Republic are irrelevant.

Slainte on April 9, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Resist We Much on April 9, 2012 at 12:31 PM

She is going to charge Zimmerman without a grand jury hearing.

NotCoach on April 9, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Is it just me, or is anyone else deeply disturbed that our Republic could be hanging by the thread of one vote?

How did we get here?

Chip on April 9, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Your lament is only valid if you are wondering how we got to a place where there are 4 justices that disregard the constitution entirely, one who is a loose cannon, and 4 who abide by the constitution on a regular basis. If you’re saying that the vote should be a no-brainer 9-0 vote to kill the bill, then yes – you’re right, how did we get here? Quick answer is that we have soft-bellied Senators who say stupid stuff like “elections have consequences” while voting to confirm liberal justices who hate our founding documents.

CycloneCDB on April 9, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Zeitgeist

Roy Rogers on April 9, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Anyone actually listening to any of the justices, liberal or conservative, had to come away with the thought that they are highly intelligent and at least seemingly open minded. Intellectually curious certainly.

Dash on April 9, 2012 at 12:42 PM

The uptick in approval from independents shows that going on an offensive against the Supreme Court could very well marginalize Obama among unaffiliated voters and become a big electoral handicap for Obama in the fall — which he hardly needs this year as it is.

Anything that gives Obama another electoral handicap is fine by me.

PatriotGal2257 on April 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM

She is going to charge Zimmerman without a grand jury hearing.

NotCoach on April 9, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Maybe. The evidence is very weak and the whole “Trayvon was just going to and from the store for Skittles and an Arizona iced tea” timeline has been thrown into question. Also, Trayvon was evidently NOT walking down the sidewalk when Zimmerman called the police. He was walking between two townhouses.

The dispatcher did tell him to cease following him and he did. He lost sight of him. The dispatcher did, however, ask for an address and that is when, evidently, Z went to look at an address under a street light. After obtaining the street address, he was returning to his truck when Trayvon confronted him and punched him in the face. One eyewitness has sworn to this.

So, I don’t know. I guess the odds are greater that she will seek a warrant because she wouldn’t want a bounty on her head if she did nothing. As I have written, no one is going to be satisfied because the justice they get may not be the “justice” they seek.

Resist We Much on April 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Special Prosecutor: Trayvon Martin case NOT going to grand jury.

Oh, shyt! Helter Skelter’s gonna break loose!

Resist We Much on April 9, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Gives the lefties a raison d’être, at least until the election.

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Resist We Much on April 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM

This entire mess has become a political nightmare. If she really was interested in not indicting she would send it to the grand jury in order to try and deflect responsibility. No way in Hell she is going to refuse to send the case to a grand jury and not indict Zimmerman. There is no doubt in my mind she is going to indict him.

NotCoach on April 9, 2012 at 12:50 PM

There is no doubt in my mind she is going to indict him.

NotCoach on April 9, 2012 at 12:50 PM

She has to use the grand jury to get an indictment.

Resist We Much on April 9, 2012 at 12:52 PM

She has to use the grand jury to get an indictment.

Resist We Much on April 9, 2012 at 12:52 PM

According to this article only first degree murder charges can come from a grand jury. Anything else a prosecutor can bypass the grand jury.

NotCoach on April 9, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Change: Supreme Court ratings jump to new high after ObamaCare arguments

Something I’m missing here?

Whats wrong with that?

liberal4life on April 7, 2012 at 10:34 AM

M240H on April 9, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Via The Miami Herald:

In Florida, the decision on whether to indict someone in capital cases must be made by a grand jury. In all lesser cases the decision to file charges are routinely made by prosecutors. But in highly controversial or difficult cases, prosecutors often defer to a grand jury, leaving the politically charged decision to a panel of citizens

Corey’s office pointed out that the decision not to take the case to a grand jury should not be taken as an indication of which way she’s going to decide.

“The decision should not be considered a factor in the final determination of the case,” her office said in a release.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/09/2739151/trayvon-martin-case.html#storylink=cpy

Resist We Much on April 9, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Is it just me, or is anyone else deeply disturbed that our Republic could be hanging by the thread of one vote?

How did we get here?

Chip on April 9, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Your lament is only valid if you are wondering how we got to a place where there are 4 justices that disregard the constitution entirely, one who is a loose cannon, and 4 who abide by the constitution on a regular basis. If you’re saying that the vote should be a no-brainer 9-0 vote to kill the bill, then yes – you’re right, how did we get here? Quick answer is that we have soft-bellied Senators who say stupid stuff like “elections have consequences” while voting to confirm liberal justices who hate our founding documents.

CycloneCDB on April 9, 2012 at 12:40 PM

I can’t disagree with that – you more or less articulated my semi-vague lament to our current situation- thank you for that.

It’s hard not to get depressed at how close we really are towards going over the edge.

Man is not free unless government is limited- Ronald Reagan

Chip on April 9, 2012 at 1:09 PM

According to this article only first degree murder charges can come from a grand jury. Anything else a prosecutor can bypass the grand jury.

NotCoach on April 9, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Correct, but only a grand jury can issue an indictment.

Resist We Much on April 9, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Just wait until President Romney appoints 4 new safely conservative judges. Through the roof!!

SouthernGent on April 9, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Is it just me, or is anyone else deeply disturbed that our Republic could be hanging by the thread of one vote?

How did we get here?

Man is not free unless government is limited – Ronald Reagan

Chip on April 9, 2012 at 12:15 PM

It flat out scares the hell out of me too…

Ltlgeneral64 on April 9, 2012 at 1:13 PM

The opposite of apathy.

American’s paying attention is absolutely mortal to liberal-ism.

Speakup on April 9, 2012 at 1:16 PM

I’m too smart for you guys.

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Heh. Last refuge of an idiot.

John the Libertarian on April 9, 2012 at 1:16 PM

No way in Hell she is going to refuse to send the case to a grand jury and not indict Zimmerman. There is no doubt in my mind she is going to indict him.

NotCoach on April 9, 2012 at 12:50 PM

I think the “stand-your-ground” or one of the similar laws will soon find itself in front of the SCOTUS. At this point, it really isn’t about Trayvon Martin’s death it is the system and law that is really on trial.

Happy Nomad on April 9, 2012 at 1:17 PM

I think Obama and the Democrats got greedy. Socialized medicine has been the holy grail of the left for so long they over-reached with Obamacare. Had they bullied through something without the individual mandate, they probably would have higher support numbers and a stronger case in the SCOTUS. But, so much of Obamacare depends on the mandate, they are toast if it falls because so much of the funding relies on forcing people to buy insurance (ultimately all run by the government). Conversely, if the mandate is held constitutional, voters will hate Obama and Dems even more even as they decide other things are legal under the commerce clause.

Happy Nomad on April 9, 2012 at 12:21 PM

They got greedy AND they did not want to make the mistakes that they felt Hillary/Bill made the last time around. Namely, they wanted to prevent the insurance companies from opposing their attempt with more Harry and Louise ads. Thus, they had to bribe the insurance companies to support reform and the only way to do that was to include an individual mandate equaling more customers for insurance companies justifying the hit to their bottome lines caused by being forced to take all comers with pre-existing conditions.

txmomof6 on April 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM

So, I don’t know. I guess the odds are greater that she will seek a warrant because she wouldn’t want a bounty on her head if she did nothing. As I have written, no one is going to be satisfied because the justice they get may not be the “justice” they seek.

Resist We Much on April 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Were this not going to prosecution, she would have wanted the political cover of a grand jury ruling.

Happy Nomad on April 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Is it just me, or is anyone else deeply disturbed that our Republic could be hanging by the thread of one vote?

How did we get here?

Man is not free unless government is limited – Ronald Reagan

Chip on April 9, 2012 at 12:15 PM

The same diseased way Obama became President in 2008 and Mitt Romney became the 2012 Republican nominee, craven surrender to leftist statism.

ebrown2 on April 9, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Obama must be so furious. Furious enough for him to hold another press conference and warn them about acting “stupidly”?

milcus on April 9, 2012 at 1:24 PM

I’m too smart for you guys.

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Which is why you don’t get to comment here anymore.

Washington Nearsider on April 9, 2012 at 1:25 PM

I think the “stand-your-ground” or one of the similar laws will soon find itself in front of the SCOTUS. At this point, it really isn’t about Trayvon Martin’s death it is the system and law that is really on trial.

Happy Nomad on April 9, 2012 at 1:17 PM

What constitutional violation occurs under stand your ground laws? Besides that you also have the thorny issue of negative SCOTUS orders vs. positive SCOTUS orders. Meaning what exactly does SCOTUS order Florida to do if they find stand your ground laws unconstitutional? Does SCOTUS start issuing criminal indictments (positive action), because simply ruling stand your ground laws unconstitutional does nothing since a state refusing to prosecute someone is not something SCOTUS can really make a ruling on.

NotCoach on April 9, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Is it just me, or is anyone else deeply disturbed that our Republic could be hanging by the thread of one vote?

How did we get here?

Man is not free unless government is limited – Ronald Reagan

Chip on April 9, 2012 at 12:15 PM

It flat out scares the hell out of me too…

Ltlgeneral64 on April 9, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Me, three!!!

I am very guarded about this O-Care ruling going our way. No matter what was said during oral arguments. I’ll be confident only once the ruling has been handed down in the affirmative (hence, O-Care becomes history).

Bitter Clinger on April 9, 2012 at 1:25 PM

justifying the hit to their bottome lines caused by being forced to take all comers with pre-existing conditions.

txmomof6 on April 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM

In reality, you pretty much have to have an individual mandate if you are going to force insurers enroll individuals without pre-existing conditions. Otherwise, many healthy people would not enroll until they needed healthcare, leaving the insurers rolls filled with the sick and lame. Health insurance is all about managing risk and that can’t happen if the healthy shun insurance until they need it, knowing full well they will have to be enrolled without question when the time comes when they do.

No insurance plan can last with more taking out of the system than are paying in.

Happy Nomad on April 9, 2012 at 1:25 PM

I’m too smart cocky for you guys my own good.

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Which is why you don’t get to comment here anymore.

Washington Nearsider on April 9, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Fixed.

Bitter Clinger on April 9, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Were this not going to prosecution, she would have wanted the political cover of a grand jury ruling.

Happy Nomad on April 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM

I tend to agree with you, but it will not be through an indictment. ONLY a grand jury can return an indictment.

Resist We Much on April 9, 2012 at 1:28 PM

I’m too smart for you guys.

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Schadenfreude on April 9, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Well, s/he is very good at regurgitating talking points while remaining impervious to actual discussion, argument, or evidence. Paired with the frequent inability to form complete sentences, that’s gotta be worth something.

peski on April 9, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Which is why you don’t get to comment here anymore.

Washington Nearsider on April 9, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Did libtard4life get banned? I was wondering when the spam filters would kick in.

peski on April 9, 2012 at 1:29 PM

I tend to agree with you, but it will not be through an indictment. ONLY a grand jury can return an indictment.

Resist We Much on April 9, 2012 at 1:28 PM

I am not a lawyer so you will need to educate me on this point. Can a person be charged with a felony and tried in a court without an indictment?

NotCoach on April 9, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Which is why you don’t get to comment here anymore.

Washington Nearsider on April 9, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Did libtard4life get banned? I was wondering when the spam filters would kick in.

peski on April 9, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Yup, she finally Got Fired in the F & F thread, after trying to hijack it and change the discussion to Mitt Romney’s religion.

Del Dolemonte on April 9, 2012 at 1:35 PM

I tend to agree with you, but it will not be through an indictment. ONLY a grand jury can return an indictment.

Resist We Much on April 9, 2012 at 1:28 PM

I am not a lawyer so you will need to educate me on this point. Can a person be charged with a felony and tried in a court without an indictment?

NotCoach on April 9, 2012 at 1:34 PM

I’m not a lawyer either, but in 2 Federal Court rulings (one in 2003 and another in 2011), two foreign countries (and by extension the person or persons leading those countries) were formally charged with felony crimes and were tried in court without actually being there. Both countries were found guilty of the crimes they were charged with.

Those countries were never formerly indicted for the felony crimes they were accused of, yet both trials were allowed to proceed.

Del Dolemonte on April 9, 2012 at 1:40 PM

I am not a lawyer so you will need to educate me on this point. Can a person be charged with a felony and tried in a court without an indictment?

NotCoach on April 9, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Yes. You get a warrant for a person’s arrest after showing probable cause.

As the Miami Herald indicates, prosecutors usually use a grand jury in sensational cases. It takes the heat off of them.

Of course, there is no statute of limitations on murder so she can always seek an indictment later…even after charging him.

Resist We Much on April 9, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Del Dolemonte on April 9, 2012 at 1:40 PM

But is trying a state or a government the same as trying an individual?

It may sound like I’m trying to split hairs here – I’m really not.

Also, are foreign countries subject to US Constitutional protections? I’d argue they are not. Therefore, they are not due the same benefits a citizen defendant would be afforded.

Washington Nearsider on April 9, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Is it just me, or is anyone else deeply disturbed that our Republic could be hanging by the thread of one vote?

How did we get here?
Chip on April 9, 2012 at 12:15 PM

It flat out scares the hell out of me too…

Ltlgeneral64 on April 9, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Me, three!!!

I am very guarded about this O-Care ruling going our way. No matter what was said during oral arguments. I’ll be confident only once the ruling has been handed down in the affirmative (hence, O-Care becomes history).

Bitter Clinger on April 9, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Hopefully we’ll come out okay on this score, but it’s too close a call for me.

Man is not free unless government is limited- Ronald Reagan

Chip on April 9, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Special Prosecutor: Trayvon Martin case NOT going to grand jury.

Oh, shyt! Helter Skelter’s gonna break loose!

Resist We Much on April 9, 2012 at 12:17 PM

And you all thought Charles Manson was crazy.

/

UltimateBob on April 9, 2012 at 1:55 PM

The options for this poll: excellent, good, fair, poor, are sort of misleading. This is an instance where “fair” shouldn’t be a response. One would hope the Supreme Court would be “fair”…so I could see fair being a positive response.

monalisa on April 9, 2012 at 2:00 PM

No way in Hell she is going to refuse to send the case to a grand jury and not indict Zimmerman. There is no doubt in my mind she is going to indict him.

NotCoach on April 9, 2012 at 12:50 PM

I think the “stand-your-ground” or one of the similar laws will soon find itself in front of the SCOTUS. At this point, it really isn’t about Trayvon Martin’s death it is the system and law that is really on trial.

Happy Nomad on April 9, 2012 at 1:17 PM

SYG looks to be challenged in Georgia. Zimmermann’s defense according to his version of the events don’t rely on SYG though. It looks more like simple self-defense.

slickwillie2001 on April 9, 2012 at 2:22 PM

It’s racist to like the Supreme Court -or something like that.

Then again, there’s Kelo and Row which didn’t exactly set confidence in the SC’s total political creation of law, unless the enumerated powers have a missing appendix in my copy of the constitution?

Don L on April 9, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Del Dolemonte on April 9, 2012 at 1:40 PM

But is trying a state or a government the same as trying an individual?

It may sound like I’m trying to split hairs here – I’m really not.

Also, are foreign countries subject to US Constitutional protections? I’d argue they are not. Therefore, they are not due the same benefits a citizen defendant would be afforded.

Washington Nearsider on April 9, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Well, in both case I cited, the countries themselves were named in the lawsuits, but individuals were also named, so those individuals were also on trial. I probably should have made that clear.

The Governments refused to defend themselves in court. That’s all you need to know.

Del Dolemonte on April 9, 2012 at 2:34 PM

I can’t disagree with that – you more or less articulated my semi-vague lament to our current situation- thank you for that.

It’s hard not to get depressed at how close we really are towards going over the edge.

Man is not free unless government is limited- Ronald Reagan

Chip on April 9, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Yep. The fact that one person is all that stands between us and pretty much a complete surrender to statism is damn scary.

CycloneCDB on April 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM

This poll makes no sense. I thought obaka’s numbers were going up?

ladyingray on April 9, 2012 at 5:36 PM