In practically every case, the court aligned not just with a majority but a supermajority...

This seems trivial as you can often word a policy question to get the answer you want, especially for low-salience, first-time-they-thought-about-it questions like "should gunmakers be financially responsible for crimes committed by Mexican cartels." And these researchers did run the polls they're citing.

And then the essay no-true-Scotsmans it by saying, well, they didn't align with public opinion in Dobbs, but then they moderated after. What good is a theory if it doesn't predict the most important cases?

And it doesn't mention the grant of presidential immunity at all.

I also notice it doesn't mention student loan forgiveness or the environmental "Major Questions Doctrine" case.

There's a great Uncommon Law case (Dahlia Ltd v Yvonne, "An Act of God") in which a very junior barrister argues in front of the Lords that his client, though they have lost their case, should not be held liable for costs, because it's settled law that you can't be held liable for an Act of God, and a judgement of the House of Lords is effectively an Act of God, ie something "that no reasonable man could be expected to anticipate".

"Milord, it must be evident a priori that no reasonable man can foresee a decision of the House of Lords, for otherwise no reasonable man would appeal to the House of Lords, only to lose his case... No man can foresee an Act of God and therefore no man is mulcted in money by the Courts for anything that follows from these proceedings, since it would be inequitable to hold a man responsible in law for that for which he cannot ex hypothesi be responsible in fact. A decision of your Lordships on a difficult point of law, with great respect, is as incalculable as the onset of a flood, and by the same reasoning it would be inequitable for either side to be compelled to pay for it."
"But would not your reasoning apply with equal force to the costs of the hearing in the High Court or the Court of Appeal?"
"In the Court of Appeal, perhaps, milord, but not in the High Court, for there the proceedings consist mainly in a finding of fact by the jury, and a reasonable man can be expected to foresee that a British jury will discover the true facts..."

More seriously, most of the cases the Supremes look at are fairly low-salience issues, and, if we assume for a moment that the US is a functioning democracy, the state of the law actually should represent what a supermajority of people think is right, and a functioning and non-corrupt court should interpret the law honestly - so you'd see the same results even without any attention to public opinion.

Malhotra's hypothesis is that the Court may be picking cases where it knows it will rule in line with public opinion, but that begs a very important question:

How are the Supremes supposed to know what public opinion is in the first place? Was there really readily available public polling on all these issues in advance?

Those are great points about which decisions were excluded.

I suspect the "median voter" concept no longer works well in this era, because elections just don't turn on policies that much any longer. 90% of the country votes for the same party every time out and their policy preferences mostly change in tandem with party leadership's preferences. The remainder is primarily a hodgepodge of people who just dislike whoever is in power and "vibes" voters that may as well be choosing radio stations in the car. The median American voter in 2024 is an ideologically incoherent mess.

I can't find the 2025 questions. The OP item seems to frame the issues in terms of the results as reported by SCOTUSblog, and not by the questions asked in the survey.

Here is the 2024 data. I don't think this method can get at real public opinion about real court decisions.

So for instance, presidential immunity was taken up in the 2024 survey and, yeah, 73.6 percent disagreed with SCOTUS on that one. Here's how that looks in the survey:

Some people think that former presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution for actions they took while president and so can be criminally prosecuted for such actions. Other people think that former presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for actions they took while president. What do you think?

Former presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for actions they took while president

Former presidents are NOT immune from criminal prosecution for actions they took while president

But this leaves out the fact that this immunity only applies to "official acts." Personally, I believe that omission is legit and gets to the core issue, but it fails to reckon with the court's actual argument.

On the other hand, it also doesn't touch on the inadmissability of evidence about unofficial acts if the evidence is related to the performance of an official act. What would the public think of that important aspect of the decision?

It all reminds me of Jonathan Haidt. You can prove whatever you want to prove using surveys like this.

That's also very true. The way it was phrased in the interview was "if you were building a new party, what positions would maximize the portion of voters you align with?" The answer ...

OMFG MY PHONE IS FORCING VOICE TRANSCRIBE ON ME AND IT KEEPS WRITING DOWN WHAT MY KIDS ARE SAYING AND ITS TAKING ME TEN MINUTES TO WRITE THIS DOWN, what fresh hell is this!???

I think I turned it off.

Anyway 9 was responding to 7 and I don't even remember my point, probably something brilliant.

I mean 8 was responding to 6. Sorry pf.

I've only skimmed the Trump rape allegation, but it's hard for me to conceive of an allegation of nonconsensual sexual behavior by Trump that I would find implausible.

12: I don't think he likes guys at all. But involving a woman or a girl who looks at least on the cusp of womanhood, I don't think there's anything I would find implausible there. What a gross fuck. I hate that I have to think about him at all, ever, in any way.

Two instances of him forcibly raping adult women are on public record, so yeah, hard to put any of it past him.

The aspect I think about is that we know well that he sees anyone who walks away from cheating/scamming/taking advantage is a sucker. It never crosses his mind to walk away from something he desires. So I don't have an opinion on whether he'd seek out young girls on his own volition. But this is not that. If his buddy orchestrates young girls for everyone, I 1000% cannot imagine him demurring and not joining in.

I guess the article had to mention Dobbs. But not to mention Trump v. US ? Or Shelby County? Or overturning Chevron ? Maybe the median voter wants a king, wants voter suppression, wants no regulations. I guess. But it's suspicious that these -momentous- decisions (I'm surely leaving out other equally important ones[*]) are left out.

[*] and allowing Trump to impound any monies he wants? firing anybody he wants?

If the median voter thinks all this is good-to-go ..... really, stick a fork in America.

America lacks a pop-up thermometer like the turkeys from Butterball.

||
Seed of the Sacred Fig? I don't want a downer.
|>

18 I haven't seen it yet but it looks excellent, though unfortunately a downer.

I hope we live to see the day a buzzy Iranian film can reasonably be expected not to be a downer.

Ha! But they are so very good. Have you seen Kiarostami's Where is the Friend's House? A masterpiece and one of the most uplifting films I've ever seen.

28 it's definitely time for my knockabout comedy set in tenth-century Syria, "Omar The Assassin" about a harmless Iranian stoner who is known to everyone in his village as Omar the Weed Dude, "Omar al-hashishin", and then travels to Alawite Syria and gets involved in HILARIOUS MISUNDERSTANDINGS.

Think "Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle" except it's two Iranian dudes, it's Alamut, and the Neil Patrick Harris character is Hassan al Sabbah.

The other Iranian dude is of course perpetually wasted college dropout and tent entrepreneur Omar Khayyam.

6: I'm closer to the median voter on drug policy than I am when I was 20, but my views on drug war etc. haven't budged much since there of 18.

I forgot about Harold and Kumar! I wonder if that would be fun to watch with kids.

I mean, probably? There's some naughty words used but not much else - the worst bit a euphemised suggestion at the end that NPH has had what the tabloids would call a "tryst" in the front seat of Kumar's car and left stains.

The Washington Post is surveying former subscribers and I really appreciated the opportunity to tell them exactly why I dropped.

They were deeply committed to the idea that I dropped because $120 was too much money in tightening economic times.

If the kids have already seen the Lemony Snicket show on Netflix, then they probably won't get the humor value of Harold & Kumar's Dirtbag Doogie Howser.

Fortunately, WaPo has now laid off most of the people whose work occasionally made me wish I was still subscribed.

Yeah, I mentioned that to them.

I'm not one of you modern parents with the permissive attitudes about movie sex, drugs and violence, but I think even you liberal elites might find the two Harold and Kumar sequels a bit much for the kids.

So for instance, in Escape from Guantanamo our heroes go to the house of a friend who, bored with the idea of a topless party, instead hosts a bottomless party. And A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas includes a scene with penis frozen to a pole in a manner reminiscent of A Christmas Story.

It turns out that imdb has parental guides for all three movies. Christmas here, Guantanamo here and the original here.

"Sex and nudity" for the sequels is rated "Severe."

All three are rated ungenerously by Rotten Tomatoes at 74, 53 and 69. Movie critics have little patience for frat-boy stoner humor.

Guantanamo (the 53) included a sympathetic portrayal of GW Bush that was somehow weirdly plausible. Christmas had an over-the-top claymation sequence and a violent episode involving Santa. I find myself wanting to watch them all again, but I don't think I can do the latter two with my quasi-adult kids.

Severe nudity?

On the temperature scale.

I've never seen the movie though.

And I probably never will. Dude, Where's My Car perfected the stoner comedy. There's no need to see another.

37: Not even for the severe nudity?

Dude. Sweet.

Maybe.

38: It's available for free at any bus stop

If you've lost your car, that is indeed where you will be.