Rasmussen: SCOTUS ratings slip after ObamaCare ruling

posted at 3:31 pm on July 1, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Hey, maybe delegitimization is a problem for the Supreme Court after all — even if not in the way liberal critics predicted before Thursday’s ruling to uphold ObamaCare.  A new poll by Rasmussen shows a big jump in negative perceptions of the court after the decision:

Public opinion of the Supreme Court has grown more negative since the highly publicized ruling on the president’s health care law was released. A growing number now believe that the high court is too liberal and that justices pursue their own agenda rather than acting impartially.

week ago,  36% said the court was doing a good or an excellent job. That’s down to 33% today. However, the big change is a rise in negative perceptions. Today, 28% say the Supreme Court is doing a poor job. That’s up 11 points over the past week. …

Thirty-seven percent (37%) now believe the Supreme Court is too liberal, while 22% think it’s too conservative. A week ago, public opinion was much more evenly divided:  32% said it was too liberal and 25% said too conservative.

In the latest survey, 31% now believe the balance is about right.

Prior to the decision, liberal commentators and politicians warned that the court’s legitimacy could be fatally undermined if it overturned ObamaCare.  It looks as though the opposite turned out to be true, although it’s likely a relatively temporary phenomenon.  Republicans shifted from significantly positive (42% good or excellent, 14% poor) to strongly negative (20/43).  Democrats moved from 35/22 to 50/11.  (I guess they didn’t get the memo about Roberts’ Commerce Clause limitations, eh?) As always, the key is the perception of the court by independents, and that noticeably worsened, going from 31/14 to 31/30.

Will this matter?  Not directly, no, because Supreme Court justices don’t have to stand for election.  However, the erosion in support for the court gives Mitt Romney and Republican candidates for the Senate new ammunition to use in this election cycle.  The Court always matters in presidential elections, especially for conservatives, but the big issues of jobs and the economy had put them on the back burner.  Jobs and the economy will still be the most important issues in this election, but the decision on Thursday makes Supreme Court appointments and confirmations much more relevant than earlier, and that will play well for Romney among the Tea Party activist base, which had been diffident at best toward Romney until now.  The rising unhappiness among independents doesn’t bode well for Obama, either.

For the moment, though, the decision doesn’t appear to have impacted the presidential race.  Rasmussen’s latest presidential tracking poll shows a 45/45 dead heat, exactly as it was the previous day.   Still, Romney may have good news on the way:

Today’s results are the same as they were just before the Supreme Court ruled on the health care law. See tracking history.

However, intensity is up among conservatives. On Thursday morning, 43% of conservative voters were following the presidential race on a daily basis. That’s up to 51% today. It remains to be seen whether this is a lasting change, statistical noise, or a temporary response to the health care ruling.

Just 28% of moderates and 31% of liberals are following the race that closely. Those numbers are little changed since the Supreme Court ruling. Interest in a campaign is typically a good early indicator of voter turnout.

It’s still early in the general-election campaign, too.  Most people won’t start tuning in until the conventions, which start on August 27th with the Republican convention in Tampa.  However, people questioned Romney’s ability to generate conservative intensity in this race — and at least for now, he seems to be succeeding, perhaps with a big boost from the Supreme Court.


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

Most people won’t start tuning in until the conventions, which start on August 27th with the Republican convention in Tampa. However, people questioned Romney’s ability to generate conservative intensity in this race — and at least for now, he seems to be succeeding, perhaps with a big boost from the Supreme Court.

Intensity?

People might not be thrilled with Romney but they’re thinking….

………”Obama?, Sweet Jesus..ain’t got no time for dat!”

PappyD61 on July 1, 2012 at 3:34 PM

White House: ObamaCare Not a Tax
Which is the same as saying…
White House: Roberts is a FOOL.

…now, who couldn’t agree with that !

Traitor, fool and OBOZO tool Roberts re-ignited the immense fury of Tea Party America that successfully threw out of power corrupt, crazy, ding-bat pelosi in 2010 by throwing out scores of her d-cRAT socialist puppets and stooges in congress. Thanks to Roberts’ caving-in, Americans will be even more charged up in Nov. 2012 to finish the job started in 2010. I expect a massive wave of votes for ALL Repub alternatives to socialist extremists will be the result, and the likelihood of America being freed from the boot-on-our-necks of OBOZO and the dingy-harry leftist Senate will be very high.

TeaPartyNation on July 1, 2012 at 3:34 PM

…REALLY!

KOOLAID2 on July 1, 2012 at 3:35 PM

So what? They are not a beauty contest.

If their ratings are at zero, they should still uphold the constitution. Period.

Roberts, you weasel!

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Roberts sold his vote.

We’ll never know what interest got to him. But Roberts was bought.

He was even stupid enough to admit it.

tetriskid on July 1, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Mitt has to start talking about SCOTUS vacancies and what could happen if Obama gets more. We are going to need another conservative on the court just to counter the a-hole who thinks his job is satisfying the editorial pages of NYT and WaPo.

Mark1971 on July 1, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Well, duh.

RoadRunner on July 1, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Their job is not to add language to the laws.

What a horrific precedent Roberts did set!

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 3:41 PM

However, people questioned Romney’s ability to generate conservative intensity in this race — and at least for now, he seems to be succeeding, perhaps with a big boost from the Supreme Court.

Romney isn’t generating a damn thing. Obama is 100% responsible for conservative intensity.

Spliff Menendez on July 1, 2012 at 3:42 PM

What the swine in the admin. want you to do.

Never.

The swine, Jack Lew and Obama, doesn’t want the electorate to know that this is the biggest tax on the middle class in international history.

Becuase is it s regressive tax Obama hates the middle class and the poor.

Play this 24/7 until Nov. 6, 2012.

It is what Lew and Obama don’t want the voters to know.

And for the sake of all freedoms, quit naming it Obama’care’. It has nothing to do with care, whatever.

Call it ObamaTax or Obamination, or something like that. Let’s have a contest.

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 3:47 PM

And we should believe this because it’s coming from the house of Raz? The “polling” outfit funded by the corporate welfare queens? Okkkkkkk

Uppereastside on July 1, 2012 at 3:47 PM

If true, Roberts is an utter coward and should resign for derelict of duty.

jawkneemusic on July 1, 2012 at 3:50 PM

And we should believe this because it’s coming from the house of Raz? The “polling” outfit funded by the corporate welfare queens? Okkkkkkk
Uppereastside on July 1, 2012 at 3:47 PM

If this were a Bloomburg Poll and it had Obama up 40 points you’d be singing a different tune now wouldn’t you?

jawkneemusic on July 1, 2012 at 3:52 PM

SCOTUS ratings slip after ObamaCare ruling

So? They are not running for office , they don’t even have to worry about holding their jobs,
Infact, they don’t even care about the public opinion and impacts of their ” opinions” on the taxpaying people any more.
Scroooooo the 5 idiots in black robes who just made Hussein a dictator for life, just like themselves..

burrata on July 1, 2012 at 3:53 PM

If true, Roberts is an utter coward and should resign for derelict of duty.

jawkneemusic on July 1, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Oh, it’s true.

Roberts sold his vote.

Jay Cost & National Review are probably cheering.

tetriskid on July 1, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Okkkkkkk

Uppereastside on July 1, 2012 at 3:47 PM

…what’s that ^ ^ ^ ?…a booger you haven’t picked yet?

KOOLAID2 on July 1, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Blame Obama and the lsm

cmsinaz on July 1, 2012 at 3:54 PM

And we should believe this because it’s coming from the house of Raz? The “polling” outfit funded by the corporate welfare queens? Okkkkkkk

Uppereastside on July 1, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Because it has been the most consistently accurate pollster for the last two elections, that’s why. You want to read fiction funded by Soros, try Zogby or PPP.

Wethal on July 1, 2012 at 3:54 PM

We are going to need another conservative on the court just to counter the a-hole who thinks his job is satisfying the editorial pages of NYT and WaPo.

Mark1971 on July 1, 2012 at 3:38 PM

And re-writing laws under the guise of “judicial restraint” to make a square peg into a round hole. You know how Obama has made Carter look like a statesman in comparison? Well, Roberts is making Souter look like Scalia in comparison.

TxAnn56 on July 1, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Ben Nelson to John Roberts: “Stay out of Pizza Huts.”

Wethal on July 1, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Biden to Obama: “This is a big f-in mess.”

Mr_Magoo on July 1, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Because it has been the most consistently accurate pollster for the last two elections, that’s why. You want to read fiction funded by Soros, try Zogby or PPP.

Wethal on July 1, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Zogby’s still around? They must have fallen down that same hole of irrelevance than CNN fell into.

XD

Myron Falwell on July 1, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Is there no recourse we can take against Roberts? Seriously, he rewrote the law and did it for is own vanity. Is there no recourse against corruption such as this?

jawkneemusic on July 1, 2012 at 3:58 PM

It’s a sad day when a strick constructionist (so we were told by George Bush) sells out to the Washington liberal elite and it’s historians. Justices are not supposed to give 2 sh*ts about politics and what is written in the opinion pages of the Times and Post. Roberts seems to care about that, and what liberal historians will write in the history books. Sad day!

Obama will fill the courts with liberals and they will eventually kill roberts’ interpretation of the commerce clause. Just you watch.

rubberneck on July 1, 2012 at 3:59 PM

And we should believe this because it’s coming from the house of Raz? The “polling” outfit funded by the corporate welfare queens? Okkkkkkk

Uppereastside on July 1, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Says the chump whose daddy obozo is the king of crony capitalism. How’s GE doing?? You know, the company run by zero’s buddy that cleared a couple of billion bucks and paid zero tax AND shipped jobs overseas???? How about the billions wasted on “green energy” by ur messiah?? BTW “Raz” got the presidential race right. Go away u dolt.

Talon29 on July 1, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Obama will fill the courts with liberals and they will eventually kill roberts’ interpretation of the commerce clause. Just you watch.
rubberneck on July 1, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Roberts already did it for them with his “government can tax non activity” nonsense.

jawkneemusic on July 1, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Obumbonocare…wink, wink!

aposematic on July 1, 2012 at 4:07 PM

If true, Roberts is an utter coward and should resign for derelict of duty.

jawkneemusic on July 1, 2012 at 3:50 PM

And we thought the US President was the most powerful man in the world. We may need Constitutional Amendments to reign in the power of the Supreme Court.

stukinIL4now on July 1, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Is there no recourse we can take against Roberts? Seriously, he rewrote the law and did it for is own vanity. Is there no recourse against corruption such as this?

jawkneemusic on July 1, 2012 at 3:58 PM

SCOTUS can reverse a decision on an earlier case by making a contradictory decision on a current case. One example is when SCOTUS determined segregation in public schools was unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education, (1954). This reversed the “separate but equal” doctrine permitting legal segregation, established in Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896).

TxAnn56 on July 1, 2012 at 4:07 PM

I’ll post this without the link, just in case it doesn’t make through.

(CBS News) Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court’s four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama’s health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.

Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy – believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law – led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.

“He was relentless,” one source said of Kennedy’s efforts. “He was very engaged in this.”

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Link, to above.

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 4:10 PM

“There is no way I sold my vote” Chief Justice Roberts maintained as he cheerily waved with the arm sporting his new diamond-encrusted gold Rolex from the deck of his new 100 meter hydrofoil yacht then instructed the dozen hookers on board to open a new case of Dom before ordering a course change towards his new mansion in The Hamptons.

/S

viking01 on July 1, 2012 at 4:12 PM

This perception may correct over time. Besides there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about past decisions. Stay focused. The largest tax increase in history.

Bmore on July 1, 2012 at 4:12 PM

And we should believe this because it’s coming from the house of Raz? The “polling” outfit funded by the corporate welfare queens? Okkkkkkk

Uppereastside on July 1, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Poor little child.

CW on July 1, 2012 at 4:12 PM

The largest tax increase in history.

Bmore on July 1, 2012 at 4:12 PM

…in world history.

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Okkkkkkk

Uppereastside on July 1, 2012 at 3:47 PM

I never recognized your stutter before.

Rio Linda Refugee on July 1, 2012 at 4:16 PM

And we should believe this because it’s coming from the house of Raz? The “polling” outfit funded by the corporate welfare queens? Okkkkkkk

Uppereastside on July 1, 2012 at 3:47 PM

LOL.

President Obama is desperately putting his Wall Street stock in an unlikely old buddy.

The beleaguered president has recruited former Goldman Sachs head honcho Jon Corzine to shore up re-election funds from the banking industry, which is furious over Obama’s financial regulations.

Corzine, the former governor of New Jersey who was blasted out of office by Republican Chris Christie in 2009, has attended secret meetings with the president and has been working on Obama’s 2012 campaign for months, The Post has learned.

The Democrat, who now leads Manhattan-based brokerage MF Global, has been tasked with scraping up the very little banking-industry support Obama can still get.

What’s the matter, boy? Get caught with your lies again?

But we understand why; junkie leech boy Uppereastside is looking at having to PAY for his apartment, food, and health care again, PLUS having to work instead of collecting welfare, PLUS actually having to pay taxes, if Romney is elected.

Which explains why the deluded welfare tax cheat leech is screaming and squalling so much here.

northdallasthirty on July 1, 2012 at 4:17 PM

I’ll post this without the link, just in case it doesn’t make through.

(CBS News) Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court’s four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama’s health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.

Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy – believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law – led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.

“He was relentless,” one source said of Kennedy’s efforts. “He was very engaged in this.”

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 4:10 PM


THIS LEAK…

…if true…….shows that Kennedy and the Conservatives want to make plain who it was that needs to bear the brunt of the wrath of the people. Not sure if I buy it, but it would make sense (with why Kennedy’s opinion sounds like a majority opinion, hoping to cajole Roberts over).

PappyD61 on July 1, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Gallup Newsweek and NBC all have the race within the margin of error.

Poor uppereastside.

CW on July 1, 2012 at 4:17 PM

And we should believe this because it’s coming from the house of Raz? The “polling” outfit funded by the corporate welfare queens? Okkkkkkk
Uppereastside on July 1, 2012 at 3:47 PM

If this were a Bloomburg Poll and it had Obama up 40 points you’d be singing a different tune now wouldn’t you?

jawkneemusic on July 1, 2012 at 3:52 PM

You don’t see anything wrong with a “pollster” who only shows up on Fox News and is bankrolled by the RNC?

Uppereastside on July 1, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Rasmussen: SCOTUS ratings slip after ObamaCare ruling

Duh

Gohawgs on July 1, 2012 at 4:20 PM

I bet even Dear Leader will be be inviting Roberts over to shoot hoops…

d1carter on July 1, 2012 at 4:21 PM

You don’t see anything wrong with a “pollster” who only shows up on Fox News and is bankrolled by the RNC?

Uppereastside on July 1, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Not like the pollster who works for DailyKos.

Or the pollster who gets cash from the NYTimes.

tetriskid on July 1, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Stay focused…

Bmore on July 1, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Souter Roberts didn’t…

Gohawgs on July 1, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 4:10 PM

NRO also reporte that Roberts kept trying to get Kennedy to switch over so Roberts wouldn’t look like the sole swing vote, but Kennedy actually had the backbone this time.

The dissenters refused to concur in any part of Robert’s decision, but just wrote an unsigned dissent together, apparently to show their solidarity. So their dissent might have actually have been the original majority opinion. “You’re on your own, now, John.”

Wethal on July 1, 2012 at 4:23 PM

You don’t see anything wrong with a “pollster” who only shows up on Fox News and is bankrolled by the RNC?

Uppereastside on July 1, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Gallup Newsweek and NBC all have the race within the margin of error.

Poor uppereastside.

CW on July 1, 2012 at 4:17 PM

CW on July 1, 2012 at 4:24 PM

You don’t see anything wrong with a “pollster” who only shows up on Fox News and is bankrolled by the RNC?

Uppereastside on July 1, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Maybe the RNC like to get its money’s worth, and hires a pollster with a good track record.

Wethal on July 1, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

The final Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Election 2008 shows Barack Obama with 52% of the vote while John McCain is six points back at 46%. One percent (1%) of voters say they’ll select a third-party option while 1% remain undecided.-Rasmussen site

Yep he skewed that one in favor of the GOP.

/

Sheesh.

CW on July 1, 2012 at 4:28 PM

2008 Final numbers

Barrack Obama/Joseph Biden (Democrat) 69,456,897 votes (52.9%)
John McCain/Sarah Palin (Republican) 59,934,814 votes (45.7%)

CW on July 1, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Now that would be something if a whistle-blower inside the Supreme Court could leak emails of Chief Just-Us Roberts trying to lobby the other justices to change their votes with tempting offers and fabulous prizes.

Even sleazy Eric Holder might feel upstaged.

viking01 on July 1, 2012 at 4:31 PM

You don’t see anything wrong with a “pollster” who only shows up on Fox News and is bankrolled by the RNC?
Uppereastside on July 1, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Agai, if this were a leftist polling outfit being trotted out on a left wing site showing your Welfare Queen Messaih up 40 points, you would take no issue with it.

You’re a hack. Like most welfare queens are.

jawkneemusic on July 1, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Is this the quiet before the storm? I switched channels several times this weekend to be catch what was being said about the ruling. I only saw debate on the Fox channels. Maybe I missed it missed it on the others (because I can’t stand to stay on them too long.) Seems none of the others want to talk about PPACA or our attorney general.

I want to hear it loud and clear from conservatives about what they are going to do in the fight to get rid of this mega tax that none of us can afford even in a good economy.

jazzuscounty on July 1, 2012 at 4:34 PM

This article could be an entire ‘quote of the day’. Sorry if its already been posted.
If you were mad before about the ruling wait till you read how disgraceful it really
was. Jan Crawford is the only decent journalist outside of FOX and the WSJ and she
got a lulu of a scoop here.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/?pageNum=4&tag=contentMain;contentBody

AmeriCuda on July 1, 2012 at 4:36 PM

TeaPartyNation on July 1, 2012 at 3:34 PM

TPN@GodsEar

NOMOBO on July 1, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Ah, who cares. Spain just retained the UEFA European title by 4-0 over Italy.

Fallon on July 1, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Another angle is if Zero bought off Roberts for the CommieCare ruling then he likely has the goods (‘nads in a lockbox) on Roberts to have certain, er, other expectations should there be any inconveniences over how the November elections are or are not conducted.

viking01 on July 1, 2012 at 4:42 PM

ROBERTS CHANGED HIS DECISION

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/?tag=socsh

I wonder what ever could have changed his mind. Could it be the naked threats from Obama and the media to trash him and his legacy for the rest of his life? Or could it be that the 4 liberals persuaded him with the tax argument while they themselves voted for it as a provision of the commerce clause? Or, could it be that he, a month later, was persuaded by arguments that he initially rejected? Arguments by the solicitor general who only argued that it was a tax the day after he argued it wasn’t for purposes of the anti-injunction act?

F U, ROBERTS. F’N PU$$Y

The Count on July 1, 2012 at 4:43 PM

It’s a tough thing do but sort them out is what we need to do, just like they sort out the Navy Seals, You want the absolute best and you won’t get that by letting your standards slip.

mixplix on July 1, 2012 at 4:43 PM

If more people saw this, SCOTUS approval would drop even more.

bloggless on July 1, 2012 at 4:49 PM

OK FOLKS, We have had 4 days to whine and moan about what coulda, woulda, shoulda happened. It didn’t.

Now get out there and let everyone know every way you can that this is

;
“THE BIGGEST TAX INCREASE ON THE MIDDLECLASS IN HISTORY”

Barred on July 1, 2012 at 4:59 PM

For some reason, after reading this, this song popped into my head. Make of it what you will.

Ugly on July 1, 2012 at 5:00 PM

(I guess they didn’t get the memo about Roberts’ Commerce Clause limitations, eh?)

But they will.

Terrye on July 1, 2012 at 5:01 PM

The trendline on Rasmussen had Romney up by 5 less than 10 days ago…to suggest that “nothing” has happened in the race over the last week and a half is just silly.

libfreeordie on July 1, 2012 at 5:01 PM

And we should believe this because it’s coming from the house of Raz? The “polling” outfit funded by the corporate welfare queens? Okkkkkkk

Uppereastside on July 1, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Yeah, you’re right. The “polling outfit” CNN uses, ORC, is so much better. Founded by a Clinton Groupie, ORC was welcomed with open arms by CNN in 2007 after they threw Gallup under the bus.

The only reason ORC got the gig? To help make Hillary President.

PS, Rasmussen generates its income from advertising and subscriptions. And this isn’t the only poll showing the same results.

F-

Del Dolemonte on July 1, 2012 at 5:05 PM

avik roy is very unhappy with this stuff about Roberts switching. And the report that the reason the dissent sounds so odd is that Kennedy et al. refuse to acknowledge the Roberts opinion

so the unwinding of the country is in full speed ahead. In the good old days of scotus bashing by fdr, and his re-formation of the constitution, we were in bad shape, buy the utter failure of socialist ideas was not yet crystal clear…and the debt overhang of the US was, well, non existent.

After the war we were in great shape…strong enough to offset the failures of the socialist dreams.

but, now, it is different. What Roberts has done is to enable the socialist to inflict great pain on our citizens..great turmoil. That’s good for the socialist, but bad for everyone else

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/304516/did-roberts-cave-left-wing-media-pressure-avik-roy?toggle=y#comment-bar

r keller on July 1, 2012 at 5:06 PM

The trendline on Rasmussen had Romney up by 5 less than 10 days ago…to suggest that “nothing” has happened in the race over the last week and a half is just silly.
libfreeordie on July 1, 2012 at 5:01 PM

You still haven’t answered my question. Why do you lie Libatard?

jawkneemusic on July 1, 2012 at 5:06 PM

You don’t see anything wrong with a “pollster” who only shows up on Fox News and is bankrolled by the RNC?

Uppereastside on July 1, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Can you credibly prove he’s funded by the RNC? Or is that another one of your Lowereastside Lies, just like the one about Dick Cheney being a “war criminal”?

BTW, I saw Rasmussen in 2010 on the Colbert Report. I wasn’t aware Faux News carried that show.

F-

Del Dolemonte on July 1, 2012 at 5:10 PM

libfreeordie on July 1, 2012 at 5:01 PM

remember that Rasmussen’s data is a moving avg of nightly samples…which in an of itself produces cycles. So the oscillation you see is just random noise seen thru the lens of moving averages

if you back up and look at the chart, Romney appears to generally out perform obama…but, since both have error terms they occasionally reverse and barry gets the ‘lead’

just noise so far. But, certainly, not a good sign for your guy. And, also, i wish my guy was more like 5 to 10 points ahead…so i’m not overwhelmingly happy either

the beat goes on…it will probably be a tight race

r keller on July 1, 2012 at 5:15 PM

You still haven’t answered my question. Why do you lie Libatard?

jawkneemusic on July 1, 2012 at 5:06 PM

What does that graph prove? I asked how Bush was doing v. Kerry this time in 2004. There were many states Bush eventually won that he wasn’t polling above 50% in. That 50% thing for incumbents is a truism, but its not true. As has been noted, incumbents tend to win even if not polling at 50%. The study that show undecideds vote against incumbents is from 1989. That’s old buddy.

libfreeordie on July 1, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Hey Ed, this is America, we RUN for our elections, we don’t stand around waiting for them to come to us! :)

Why don’t you queue up for that lift while your at it!

LifeTrek on July 1, 2012 at 5:17 PM

libfreeordie,The largest tax increase in history. For the children to pay for.

Bmore on July 1, 2012 at 5:19 PM

libfreeordie on July 1, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Liars will lie.

And my point is Bush was doing worse in 2004 than Obama is doing now.
libfreeordie on July 1, 2012 at 1:27 PM

My graph(Gallups graph) proves you’re a f***ing liar. Bush was NOT doing worse than Obama is now in 2004 and by the way. The graphs not that old.

Keep telling lies so we can keep calling you out on them you lying liar.

jawkneemusic on July 1, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Oh and another thing about the graph. 88 polls versus an average of 5 for the rest of the Presidents and he can’t break 46%. What does that tell you? Probably nothing because your a lying hack who’s told how to think by your Overlords in the DemoRat party.

jawkneemusic on July 1, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Will this matter? Not directly, no, because Supreme Court justices don’t have to stand for election.

Strangely enough, some State Supreme Court Justices are elected.

The best example? Florida, where an All-Democrat State Supreme Court tried to steal the Presidential election for manbearpig in 2000.

And guess what? Most of them were re-elected the next time they stood for election.

Del Dolemonte on July 1, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Yeah, you’re right. The “polling outfit” CNN uses, ORC, is so much better. Founded by a Clinton Groupie, ORC was welcomed with open arms by CNN in 2007 after they threw Gallup under the bus.

The only reason ORC got the gig? To help make Hillary President.

PS, Rasmussen generates its income from advertising and subscriptions. And this isn’t the only poll showing the same results.

F-

Del Dolemonte on July 1, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Maybe she prefers Koss’s Piss Poor Polling outfit, PPP. Or perhaps the grifters at Pepe le Pew?

slickwillie2001 on July 1, 2012 at 6:05 PM

However, the erosion in support for the court gives Mitt Romney and Republican candidates for the Senate new ammunition to use in this election cycle.

Ammunition for what? Romney’s website still says:

As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts

I’m unimpressed.

besser tot als rot on July 1, 2012 at 6:21 PM

The trendline on Rasmussen had Romney up by 5 less than 10 days ago…to suggest that “nothing” has happened in the race over the last week and a half is just silly.

libfreeordie on July 1, 2012 at 5:01 PM

So now you believe Rasmussen?

Go F yourself .

CW on July 1, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Please remember an incumbent who is consistently getting 45% in polls is toast. I don’t care what the challenger is really getting becuse almost all undecideds go to the challenger. Obama ceiling appears to be around 46%. This is Reagan-carter territory.

Ta111 on July 1, 2012 at 6:30 PM

(I guess they didn’t get the memo about Roberts’ Commerce Clause limitations, eh?)

Probably because no such memo exists.

xblade on July 1, 2012 at 6:42 PM

You don’t see anything wrong with a “pollster” who only shows up on Fox News

Uppereastside on July 1, 2012 at 4:20 PM

And another thing-I already proved you’re Lying about this when I cited a Scott Rasmussen appearance in 2010 on “The Daily Show”, but let me ask a Simple person a Simple Question.

Why would any of the other networks bother having Scott on their shows in the first place? After all, they do have their own pollsters.

For them to have Scott as a guest on their shows would be an admission they don’t trust their own polling. They would rather be waterboarded by Dick Cheney first.

Mission Accomplished!

Del Dolemonte on July 1, 2012 at 6:44 PM

I’m unimpressed.

besser tot als rot

When you look for reasons to be unimpressed around every corner, it’s not hard to find, and when it is, you can just make up reasons…much like the dems do with racism.

xblade on July 1, 2012 at 6:48 PM

And my point is Bush was doing worse in 2004 than Obama is doing now.
libfreeordie on July 1, 2012 at 1:27 PM

2004 Jul 8-11: 47 A / 49 D / 4 U

2004 Jun 21-23: 48 A/ 49 D / 3 U

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx

Obama fell below 50 in Gallup for the FIRST time: 20 November 2009

http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/11/20/gallup-obama-below-50-percent/

Bush fell below 50 in Gallup for the FIRST time: 29 January – 1 February 2004

http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/11/20/gallup-obama-below-50-percent/

From The Atlantic:

Ominous Signs for Obama Are Hidden Deep in Gallup’s Polling Data

Resist We Much on July 1, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Is spitting on a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court considered protected free speech by the SCOTUS?

That’s a case I’m willing to bring before the Court.

profitsbeard on July 1, 2012 at 7:05 PM

You don’t see anything wrong with a “pollster” who only shows up on Fox News

Uppereastside on July 1, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Are you saying that Stan Greenberg, James Carville, Eric Foster, Dean Debnam, who partners with Markos Moulitas, and Frank Newport have never been on MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NPR, or NBC?

You guys are so precious when you not only gullibly gulp canned, processed talking points — high in bovine excrement content, but low in factually-correct information content — and fall for it hook, line, and gristle, but do so in a way that showcases your hypocrisy (of which you are oblivious) for the world to enjoy.

It makes me just want to pinch those little, chubby cheeks. Sooooo cute!

Resist We Much on July 1, 2012 at 7:13 PM

So Roberts bailed out and said leave it to the people. Can someone point this job description out in the Constitution, you know, the document he swore to uphold. Changing laws to fit your idea of what they should have been is just plain stupid.

DDay on July 1, 2012 at 7:21 PM

It makes me just want to pinch those little, chubby cheeks. Sooooo cute!

Resist We Much on July 1, 2012 at 7:13 PM

…of little Michael Moores in diapers…

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Probably because no such memo exists.

xblade on July 1, 2012 at 6:42 PM

From the Opinion Syllabus:

Held: The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part. 648 F. 3d 1235, affirmed in part and reversed in part.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court …

2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30.

The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”

Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable CareAct’s other reforms. Each of this Court’s prior cases up holding lawsunder that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, andin service to, a granted power.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

From Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion for the majority:

“If no enumerated power authorizes Congress to pass a certain law, that law may not be enacted, even if it would not violate any of the express prohibitions in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution. . . .

THE COURT TODAY HOLDS THAT OUR CONSTITUTION PROTECTS US FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE SO LONG AS WE ABSTAIN FROM THE REGULATED ACTIVITY. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ORDER PEOPLE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE. . . . The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance.” (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Slip op. at 3, 41-42, 44)

“Our precedents recognize Congress’s power to regulate “class[es] of activities,” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1, 17 (2005) (emphasis added), NOT CLASSES OF INDIVIDUALS, APART FROM ANY ACTIVITY IN WHICH THEY ARE ENGAGED, see, e.g., Perez, 402 U. S., at 153 (“Petitioner is clearly a member of the class which engages in‘extortionate credit transactions’ . . .” (emphasis deleted)). THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE’S REGULATION OF THE UNINSURED AS A CLASS IS, IN FACT, PARTICULARLY DIVORCED FROM ANY LINK TO EXISTING COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY.

THE PROPOSITION THAT CONGRESS MAY DICTATE THE CONDUCT OF AN INDIVIDUAL TODAY BECAUSE OF PROPHESIED FUTURE ACTIVITY FINDS NO SUPPORT IN OUR PRECEDENT. We have said that Congress can anticipate the effects on commerce of an economic ACTIVITY (not INactivity – Sophie). See, e.g., Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U. S. 197 (1938) (regulating the labor practices of utility companies); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U. S. 241 (1964) (prohibiting discrimination by hotel operators); Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294 (1964) (prohibiting discrimination by restaurant owners). BUT WE HAVE NEVER PERMITTED CONGRESS TO ANTICIPATE THAT ACTIVITY ITSELF IN ORDER TO REGULATE INDIVIDUALS NOT CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN COMMERCE. Each one of our cases, including those cited by JUSTICE GINSBURG, post, at 20–21, involved PREEXISTING ECONOMIC ACTIVITY. See, e.g., Wickard, 317 U. S., at 127–129 (producing wheat); Raich, supra, at 25 (growing marijuana).

“The Framers . . . gave Congress the POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE, NOT TO COMPEL IT … [Otherwise you] undermine the principle that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A GOVERNMENT OF LIMITED AND ENUMERATED POWERS.”

“Under the Government’s theory, Congress could address [America’s] diet problem by ordering everyone to buy vegetables.”

“The Commerce Clause is NOT a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave, simply because he will PREDICTABLY ENGAGE IN PARTICULAR TRANSACTIONS. ANY POLICE POWER TO REGULATE INDIVIDUALS AS SUCH, AS OPPOSED TO THEIR ACTIVITIES, REMAINS VESTED IN THE STATES.”

Thanks for playing.

Resist We Much on July 1, 2012 at 7:26 PM

John Paul Roberts

Jaibones on July 1, 2012 at 7:46 PM

X-blade, thanks for making me put them all in one place.

Congrats, you’ve got your own page now.

Sorry, Progs, But You Really, Really, Really Did Lose The Commerce Clause Argument

(Alternative title: X Doesn’t Mark The Spot)

M2RB: 30 Seconds To Mars

I even gave you a pretty kewl song!

Resist We Much on July 1, 2012 at 7:51 PM

I’ll bet Roberts could even find truffles with his acute legal nose.

Since he can find a non-existent kind of tax in Obamacare.

profitsbeard on July 1, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Rasmussen: SCOTUS ratings slip after ObamaCare ruling

Who could have seen that coming/

Dr Evil on July 1, 2012 at 8:38 PM

The Supreme Court only worries about offending people who want to pervert the Constitution. If you support the Constitution, the SC takes you for granted and goes back to making sure those that want to pervert it aren’t too upset.

When the liberals hate the court, it is because the court rules against whatever they are trying to get away with at the time. When conservatives hate the court, it is because the court forgets its duty and rules for whatever the liberals want to get away with at the time.

FYJR

drunyan8315 on July 1, 2012 at 8:47 PM

FYJRYPOS

drunyan8315 on July 1, 2012 at 8:49 PM

That picture is worth a thousand words- and the reason why Roberts did what he did.

He was afraid of another POTUS-TOTUS SOTU public admonishment from the ex-community organizing Fraud in chief !

FlaMurph on July 1, 2012 at 10:56 PM

……I wonder what ever could have changed his mind. Could it be the naked threats from Obama and the media to trash him and his legacy for the rest of his life?……..

The Count on July 1, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Well I guess he decided to do that himself. I believe he has made people understand how utterly corrupt the systems is actually.

whbates on July 1, 2012 at 10:57 PM

I’m not sure if my earlier post made it, but I think it needs repeating. When political commenters say that Roberts is concerned about the “legitimacy” of the Court, it should be clearly understood, even if it is not stated, that his concern is NOT with the opinion of the masses (which is represented in this poll). It is with the legal elite – the Harvard and Yale academics, the other judges (again, Harvard and Yale academics), and those in whose circles he frequently travels. Notice that the first appearance Roberts made after the decision was to a conference of judges – most of whom were probably Harvard, Yale or top tier law school graduates whose life and professional experiences were NOT diverse and certain would not related to the common citizen.

This underscores who much work we still need to do to make inroads into academia, the courts and judicial circles. The entire justice system, and especially the Supreme Court (and all its clerks and interns) come from a very narrow personal and professional experience pool – a pool that tends to be very liberal (and elitist). The ABA (another set of liberal legal elites) I’m positive let their desires be known as well. Speaking as a lawyer, his switch and the reasons for it were not surprising, even though it was disappointing.

studentofhistory on July 1, 2012 at 11:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2