Tipsheet
Premium

New Poll on Recent Supreme Court Decisions Brings Bad News to Democratic Narrative

Rebecca Downs
Rebecca Downs  |  July 03, 2023 6:30 PM

Last Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ended affirmative action, a policy the Court found to violate the 14th Amendment. Asian Americans were especially hurt. It was a move that was decades in the making regarding previous cases at the Court, but this latest decision seems to have put the final nail in the coffin. 

As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, college applicants can still explain how race has impacted their life. It seems a worthy compromise as any, though you wouldn't know it from how Democrats reacted, in addition to their equally strong reactions to the student loan debt decision and the ruling that protected a website designer from having to create designs that would go against her religious beliefs by promoting same-sex marriage. 

Since the decision was handed down, ABC News/Ipsos conducted a poll gauging Americans' views on the affirmative action case, as well as the others.

The affirmative action case had the strongest support, with 52 percent of respondents saying they approve "of the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court restricting the use of race as a factor in college admissions." Just 32 percent say they disapprove, while 16 percent say they don't know.

The poll dug deeper into the affirmative action question, asking if various groups of students had "a fair chance," an "unfair advantage," or an "unfair disadvantage" of getting into the college of their choice. A majority of respondents believe White students and Asian students have "a fair chance," while a plurality agrees Black students and Hispanic or Latino students have "a fair chance." Perhaps even more telling is that only 22 percent of respondents said White students face an "unfair advantage." 

Recommended

Liberal Media Is Already Melting Down Over Pam Bondi Sarah Arnold
What Was the Matt Gaetz Attorney General Pick Really About? Josh Hammer

One would never know that the decision had such support based on how Democratic-appointed justices and elected Democrats have behaved, especially those in leadership. 

In a move you don't see every day, Justice Clarence Thomas read his concurrence from the bench, as Spencer highlighted. His opinions are always a treat, but it was particularly spicy since it addressed points from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent in the case out of the University of North Carolina. 

"I cannot deny the great accomplishments of black Americans, including those who succeeded despite long odds," Thomas writes at one point, after calling out Justice Jackson for using "her broad observations about statistical relationships between race and select measures of health, wealth, and well-being to label all blacks as victims." 

He also went on to mention factors where affirmative action may be defended (as Jackson did in her dissent) while discussing others that can be examined in the light of admissions:

Nor do Justice Jackson's statistics regarding a correlation between levels of health, wealth, and well-being between selected racial groups prove anything. Of course, none of those statistics are capable of drawing a direct causal link between race—rather than socioeconomic status or any other factor—and individual outcomes. So Justice Jackson supplies the link herself: the legacy of slavery and the nature of inherited wealth. This, she claims, locks blacks into a seemingly perpetual inferior caste. Such a view is irrational; it is an insult to individual achievement and cancerous to young minds seeking to push through barriers, rather than consign themselves to permanent victimhood. If an applicant has less financial means (because of generational inheritance or otherwise), then surely a university may take that into account. If an applicant has medical struggles or a family member with medical concerns, a university may consider that too. What it can not do is use the applicant’s skin color as a heuristic, assuming that because the applicant checks the box for “black” he therefore conforms to the university’s monolithic and reductionist view of an abstract, average black person.

Here's Thomas' concurrence arguably at its best, and what Jackson's view would actually lead to when it comes to the impediments of factoring in race:

Accordingly, JUSTICE JACKSON’s race-infused world view falls flat at each step. Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments. What matters is not the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything—good or bad—that happens in their lives. A contrary, myopic world view based on individuals’ skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism.

Then there are the hysterical responses from House and Senate Democrats and the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). 

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called the decision "misguided." And the CBC argued that the 14th Amendment actually protected "race-based admission policies," also bringing their claims about the Court overall into it. "By delivering a decision on affirmative action so radical as to deny young people seeking an education equal opportunity in our education system, the Supreme Court has thrown into question its own legitimacy," its statement claimed. 

But, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) was even more unhinged, as he aired out his longstanding, overall grievances with the Court. 

"The American people support affirmative action as a crucial part of ensuring racial justice and equity in higher education," his statement claimed at one point. "Yet extremists on the Supreme Court are once again more interested in jamming their right-wing ideology down the throats of the American people," he added.

Jeffries also tweeted about the Court, including over the weekend, since last Friday's coverage of his responses.

In a Saturday tweet, Jeffries lumped all Black Americans together, claiming they have lost "everything" thanks to the Court's decisions. 

The New York Post editorial board addressed the poll in a Sunday editorial, "For press, Supreme Court is in 'crisis' because it agrees with most Americans." They cite complaints from President Joe Biden, as well as The New York Times and New York magazine. It's not just Jeffries who claims the Court is "illegitimate." 

In addition to pointing out that Democrats didn't argue that the Court was "illegitimate" when it was going in their favor, the editorial had a fitting closing: "There is no crisis in the court. There is just progressive panic, irresponsibly aimed at shaking faith in our government and tearing things down because they don't get their way." 

The poll was discussed on Sunday's edition of ABC News's "This Week" during the roundtable panel discussion. Among the points of conversation was whether or not the decision's outcome would have election consequences. Schumer and Jeffries seem to think it will benefit their side – even though a majority of Americans agree with the Court's decision.

Host Jonathan Karl had asked, "Did the Supreme Court, by denying Democrats on substance, give them a victory by giving them something to rally around for the campaign?" 

ABC News Political Director Rick Klein said "yes," but "with an asterisk," pointing out how "affirmative action is not abortion," and that last year's Dobbs v. Jackson decision – which overturned Roe v. Wade and was less popular – kind of "up-end[ed] the political landscape." Abortion may have been one factor in why last year's November midterm elections did not turn out as well for Republicans as had been expected. 

Klein, though, also referenced how the decisions have been the result of how "elections have consequences," speaking about how the decisions were indeed thanks to justices nominated by Trump. "And guess what? We've heard it for decades. It's true. Elections have consequences," Klein offered. "These decisions would not have happened if Donald Trump had not been president and not put three justices on the court."

Though not by as strong margins, the poll also showed that a plurality of respondents – 45 percent – approved of the Court "striking down the Biden Administration's student loan debt forgiveness program." Forty percent disapproved, while 14 percent said they didn't know. 

In a statistical tie, 43 percent say they approve of the 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis case when asked if they approve or disapprove of the Court deciding "that a website designer can deny services to same-sex customers seeking a wedding website." Forty-two percent disapprove, while 14 percent said they didn't know. 

Not only is the question awkwardly phrased, but reporting from ABC News shows how little understood the case is. "Another landmark decision was handed down this week by the Supreme Court, which ruled for an evangelical Christian website designer in a case involving whether creative businesses can refuse to serve LGBTQ+ customers, citing free speech under the First Amendment," the report mentioned. 

The case is not about who is requesting Lorie Smith of 303 Creative to make a website but what they are requesting. 

The ABC News/Ipsos poll was conducted June 30-July 1 with 937 adults and an overall margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percentage points. It was noted that Black, Hispanic, and Asian respondents were oversampled. There were also a considerable amount of independents sampled, at 41 percent, while Democrats made up 26 percent and Republicans made up 25 percent of respondents. 

This poll comes after The New York Times acknowledged right before the decision came down that half of Americans disapprove of affirmative action, citing a Pew Research poll from last month.