Supreme Court's Approval Declines.

[Friedrich]

Adam Liptak, "Approval Rating for Justices Hits Just 44% in Polls," in
"The New York Times," June 8, 2012, at p. A1.

Thomas E. Ricks, "Covert Wars, Waged Virally," in "The New York
Times," June 6, 2012, at p. C1. (Book Review). (Do we want to tell
other entities in the world which we are targeting by way of computer
viruses and other attacks that it is the U.S. that happens to do these
things, so as to invite better defense and retribution?)

David E. Sanger, "Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and
Surprising Use of American Power" (New York: Crown Pub., 2012).

David Cole, ed., "The Torture Memos: Rationalizing the
Unthinkable" (New York & London: The New Press, 2009). http://www.thenewpress.com

The judiciary -- especially the nation's highest court -- depends
crucially upon the respect and political-moral authority of its
decisions for the general population.

Much of the right to CLAIM respect for its decisions has already been
lost by the New Jersey Supreme Court and other tribunals in America's
Soprano State. ("Law and Ethics in the Soprano State" and "New
Jersey's Unethical Judiciary" then "New Jersey Supreme Court's
Implosion.")

The tendency is also towards decline in respect for the nation's
Supreme Court which (mercifully) is still far from the level of the
Garden State's soiled tribunals.

The Court's power requires legitimacy that is perceived and granted,
in fact, by the people as well as their representatives together with
those affected by the court's decisions, litigants and others. ("What
is Law?" and "Roberto Unger's Revolutionary Legal Theory" then "Ronald
Dworkin's Jurisprudence of Interpretation.")

Judges do not command an army or have their own police force.
Enforcing the laws and effectuating judicial decrees is a
responsibility left to the executive branch. This creates a level of
"discretion" among police officers concerning the extent to which
judicial decrees will be enforced, or whether they will be enforced at
all.

A population can nullify or chip away or insist constantly that judges
revisit controversies -- depending on the fluctuating currents of
public opinion -- in all areas of Constitutional jurisprudence: for
example, racial justice and abortion rights continue to be sources of
controversy where there is little satisfaction that disputes have been
settled wisely or definitively. ("Manifesto for the Unfinished
American Revolution" and "America's Holocaust.")

The Court's failure to decide clearly or fairly in contested areas --
like illicit killings of American citizens or killings without
judicial process, robot bombs, and other failures to resolve human
rights controversies -- have deligitimized ALL Court decisions for
many students of U.S. law. ("Albert Florence and American Racism" and
"Justice for Mumia Abu-Jamal.")

"Bush v. Gore" is the classic example of a Supreme Court decision
unsupported by existing law or sound reasoning. Along with the
infamous "Dredd Scott" decision, "Bush v. Gore" represents a low-point
in American law. I urge you to read Justice Stevens decision in "Bush
v. Gore." ("So Black and So Blue in Prison" and "Richard A. Posner On
Voluntary Actions and Criminal Responsibility.")

Ignoring the real issue in a case because it is too controversial or
rendering partisan, politically motivated decisions, as in "Bush v.
Gore" -- where the split between the justices is strictly on
Republican versus Democrat lines -- UNDERMINES the Court's moral and
political authority, deservedly. Justices should not be political
hacks. ("Stuart Rabner and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New
Jersey" and "No More Cover-Ups and Lies, Chief Justice Rabner!")

The Court has failed to address adequately genuinely pressing
Constitutional crises (torture, assassination of Americans without due
process of law, first amendment issues on-line such as the censorship
and cybercrime that I face, every day, and other issues); the justices
have also reasoned poorly and written barely adequate or competent
opinions (lawyers are often intimidated to say these things in
America) in too many important cases. ("Struggle" and "How censorship
works in America.")

Albert Florence is a recent example of smart judges making foolish
choices for political reasons of expediency. Maybe the correct term is
"cowardly" rather than foolish choices. We need brave Supreme Court
justices, like Justices Brennan and Marshall. To ignore the real
Constitutional questions presented by a case is not to make the issue
"go away."

Racial justice questions, for example, will continue to burn under the
surface of America's legal reality if they are not addressed in
America's only ostensible "forum of principle." Worse, our prisons and
jails will be less secure and much more dangerous places if certain
abuses are allowed to go without remedies for their victims. Such
questions will resurface soon -- in more dangerous forms -- when they
are avoided by the Supreme Court that leaves them to fester in society
and penal institutions.

"Just 44% of Americans approve of the job the Supreme Court is doing
and [many people] say the justices' decisions are sometimes influenced
by their personal or political views, according to a poll conducted by
The New York Times [sic.] and CBS news."

I am sure that the disapproval rate is higher and satisfaction with
the Court's work-product is even lower than this statistic suggests.
Perhaps America's judges should trouble themselves to learn why this
is so.