Typically, voters don't vote based on the Supreme Court
Whenever either party attempts to make the Supreme Court an election year issue, it tends to fall flat. Now perhaps this will be a different kind of situation, but at least historically voters don't seem to really base their vote on the court.
Some of it may be due to a misunderstanding of what the court is and does. I remember a study a couple years ago that showed less than 1/3rd of Americans can name more than 1 Supreme Court Justice. If 2/3rds of voters can't name who is on that court, it is very likely they don't understand the ideological splits that occur on it and really don't understand what role the court has. You have to remember that the people here on DU are political junkies. A lot of us can name every single justice on that court and probably gives some biographies and quotes from each one. The number of average American voters that can do that is VERY small. I believe the study showed only 1% of Americans can name all justices of the Supreme Court. Voters also rarely understand the implications of the court. Does the average American voter have any idea what the Citizens United decision is and does? Go ask people on the street randomly and in your family and friends and ask them, "What is the Citizens United decision?" You will get a bunch of blank stares.
There is attention now because Scalia passed away and there is a vacancy. But will voters still be this tuned in about the court 8 months from now? Or will big issues like the economy, and jobs, and terrorism, and immigration become bigger issues? And what do independents really want? Do they want the Supreme Court to be stacked by one political party? Maybe independent voters would prefer a conservative to replace a conservative, moderates to replace moderates, and liberals to replace liberals on that court to maintain balance. We just don't know what independents really want.
We are assuming if the GOP blocks Obama's nominee, that the voters will rise up and completely pulverize the GOP in November. I don't know if I really believe that would happen at all. A good large number of voters are going to want the GOP to block it. We are a polarized country politically.
The court hasn't really made any decision that impacts us severely enough that the average voter would get angry about. People don't know what Citizens United is. Most Americans probably agree with the Heller decision that guns are an individual right. Most women don't really care if their birth control is covered by employer-provided insurance. Most don't even realize the Voting Rights Act was changed.
Has there been a decision that really angered the average American people enough to say..."OK, we need change on the court." There hasn't. At least not recently. In fact the Supreme Court has a much higher approval rating than Congress.
And one final point....let's think of it this way.... if Mitt Romney were president today and Justice Ginsberg passed away, what would we be saying? I'm sure 99% of DU would be demanding the Democratic party block the replacement. We tend to change our opinions a bit when the shoe is on the other foot. Suddenly, obstructionism is perfectly OK when it benefits us. But when Republicans do it, many of us throw the word "treason!" around. It's not treasonous to block a Supreme Court nominee. It's been done before, and it will be done again.
= new reply since forum marked as read
