Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Obama vs the Supreme Court: Rhetoric of the 44th President

Bookmark and Share

Obama's critical comments of the Court outweigh favorable comments by more than a 4:1 margin since taking office

barackobama05.jpgA recent Smart Politics report found that since Barack Obama took office, confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court is at its lowest mark across any administration since Gallup began running its confidence in institutions survey during the Nixon administration.

On Monday, President Obama released a statement giving qualified praise to the Court for its high profile ruling on Arizona's controversial immigration policy.

But issuing even a lukewarm statement such as this about a Supreme Court ruling has been a rarity for the president, with the vast majority of his comments about Court decision making taking a very critical tone throughout his administration.

A Smart Politics analysis of presidential statements finds that Barack Obama usually mentions the Supreme Court to discuss his own accomplishments (i.e. appointments), but, when he does mention Court rulings, his critical comments outnumber favorable statements by more than a 4:1 ratio.

Since taking office in January 2009, President Obama has mentioned the Supreme Court 219 times over nearly 150 speeches, statements, and proclamations etc.

The vast majority of these mentions do not address specific Court decisions.

In fact, just 64 mentions addressed recent or long-decided Supreme Court cases, or 29.2 percent.

Instead, when President Obama raises the issue of the Court, he most frequently does so to discuss the two appointments he made to the bench, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

A total of 95 of the 219 Obama mentions of the Court refer to one or both of these two female justices that Obama appointed to the bench in 2009 and 2010, or 43.4 percent:

"We put two women on the Supreme Court, including the first Latina Justice." (Remarks at a Democratic National Committee Fundraiser in Chicago, Illinois, April 14, 2011)

"And along the way, we've done a few other things like make sure that families aren't going bankrupt because they get sick and making sure that equal pay for equal work is a reality and appointing a couple of women to the Supreme Court because, Lord knows, we need more women on that Court." (Remarks at a Democratic National Committee Fundraiser in New York City, April 27, 2011)

"We made sure that we had two feisty women on the Supreme Court, including the first Latina." (Remarks at a Democratic National Committee Fundraiser in Miami, Florida,
June 13, 2011)

Another 13 Obama references to the Court concerned the retirements of David Souter and John Paul Stevens that led to the Sotomayor and Kagan appointments (5.9 percent) and an additional 10 mentions dealt with the importance of presidential appointments to the Supreme Court generally (4.6 percent).

When President Obama did mention specific Court cases, the majority of the time he was critical of the ruling - with many of these attacks referring to Citizens United.

Of the 64 mentions of the Supreme Court that focused on rulings, 39 dealt with Citizens United, or 61 percent, with the high profile campaign finance case accounting for 91 percent of Obama's critical mentions of the Court.

The most notable objection, of course, was incorporated into his 2010 State of the Union Address:

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems." (Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union, January 27, 2010)

But it wasn't one-and-done for Obama.

The president regularly hammered home his critique of the landmark case over the next two years in radio addresses, in remarks before party leaders, and at fundraisers:

"But this week, the United States Supreme Court handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists and a powerful blow to our efforts to rein in corporate influence. This ruling strikes at our democracy itself." (The President's Weekly Address, January 23, 2010)

"Recently however, the Supreme Court issued a decision that overturned decades of law and precedent, dealing a huge blow to our efforts to rein in this undue influence." (The President's Weekly Address, May 1, 2010)

"We're going to have to confront the gaping loophole that the Supreme Court recently opened in our campaign finance laws that allows special interests to spend without limit to influence American elections." (Remarks at a Democratic National Committee Meeting, February 6, 2010)

Overall, critical comments outnumbered positive reviews of Supreme Court decision making by more than a 4:1 ratio with only nine of Obama's 64 mentions being favorable to Court rulings (14 percent) - including Monday's statement on the Arizona immigration case.

Three of these positive mentions dealt with Roe vs. Wade on the anniversary of the landmark decision with three others on civil rights cases such as Brown vs. Board of Education.

Another 12 mentions by the president on Court rulings were neutral with regard to the decision reached in the case.

Is Obama's generally negative portrayal of the Court contributing to the low public confidence in the institution?

Consider this: at a DCCC dinner in New York City two years ago, the president snidely took a veiled shot at his political opponents on the bench:

"We have some folks on the Supreme Court who believe in the Constitution." (Remarks at a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Dinner in New York City, May 13, 2010)

President Obama Supreme Court Mentions by Topic, 2009-Present

Topic
#
%
Sotomayor / Kagan
95
43.4
Citizens United
39
17.8
Souter / Stevens retirements
13
5.9
Justices (other)
10
4.6
Appointments (general)
10
4.6
Health care
9
4.1
Terror suspects
5
2.3
Civil rights
5
2.3
Japanese internment
3
1.4
Roe vs. Wade
3
1.4
Women - fair pay
3
1.4
Energy Independence and Security Act
2
0.9
EPA
2
0.9
Arts
1
0.5
Authorization for use of Military Force
1
0.5
Homecare
1
0.5
LGBT
1
0.5
Native Americans
1
0.5
Unions
1
0.5
Immigration
1
0.5
Other
13
5.9
Note: Compiled through June 25, 2012. Table compiled by Smart Politics.

Follow Smart Politics on Twitter.

Previous post: Will Confidence in Supreme Court Erode or Rebound After Obamacare Decision?
Next post: Oklahoma GOP Poised to Run Table in US House Races for Just 3rd Time Since Statehood

Leave a comment


Remains of the Data

Is There a Presidential Drag On Gubernatorial Elections?

Only five of the 20 presidents to serve since 1900 have seen their party win a majority of gubernatorial elections during their administrations, and only one since JFK.

Political Crumbs

Strike Three for Miller-Meeks

Iowa Republicans had a banner day on November 4th, picking up both a U.S. Senate seat and one U.S. House seat, but Mariannette Miller-Meeks' defeat in her third attempt to oust Democrat Dave Loebsack in the 2nd CD means the GOP will not have a monopoly on the state's congressional delegation in the 114th Congress. The loss by Miller-Meeks (following up her defeats in 2008 and 2010) means major party nominees who lost their first two Iowa U.S. House races are now 0 for 10 the third time around in Iowa history. Miller-Meeks joins Democrat William Leffingwell (1858, 1868, 1870), Democrat Anthony Van Wagenen (1894, 1912 (special), 1912), Democrat James Murtagh (1906, 1914, 1916), Democrat Clair Williams (1944, 1946, 1952), Democrat Steven Carter (1948, 1950, 1956), Republican Don Mahon (1966, 1968, 1970), Republican Tom Riley (1968, 1974, 1976), Democrat Eric Tabor (1986, 1988, 1990), and Democrat Bill Gluba (1982, 1988, 2004) on the Hawkeye State's Three Strikes list.


Larry Pressler Wins the Silver

Larry Pressler may have fallen short in his long-shot, underfunded, and understaffed bid to return to the nation's upper legislative chamber, but he did end up notching the best showing for a non-major party South Dakota U.S. Senate candidate in more than 90 years. Pressler won 17.1 percent of the vote which is the best showing for an independent or third party U.S. Senate candidate in the state since 1920 when non-partisan candidate Tom Ayres won 24.1 percent in a race won by Republican Peter Norbeck. Overall, Pressler's 17.1 percent is good for the second best mark for a non-major party candidate across the 35 U.S. Senate contests in South Dakota history. Independent and third party candidates have appeared on the South Dakota U.S. Senate ballot just 25 times over the last century and only three have reached double digits: Pressler in 2014 and Ayres in 1920 and 1924 (12.1 percent). Pressler's defeat means he won't become the oldest candidate elected to the chamber in South Dakota history nor notch the record for the longest gap in service in the direct election era.


more POLITICAL CRUMBS

Humphrey School Sites
CSPG
Humphrey New Media Hub

Issues />

<div id=
Abortion
Afghanistan
Budget and taxes
Campaign finances
Crime and punishment
Economy and jobs
Education
Energy
Environment
Foreign affairs
Gender
Health
Housing
Ideology
Immigration
Iraq
Media
Military
Partisanship
Race and ethnicity
Reapportionment
Redistricting
Religion
Sexuality
Sports
Terrorism
Third parties
Transportation
Voting