Posted on 12/15/2025 12:15:29 PM PST by MtnClimber
Americans mostly trust the nation’s highest court to do what’s best, presumably by scrupulously following the laws enshrined in the 238-year-old U.S. Constitution. But that trust could be tested in coming months, as the Supreme Court decides whether President Donald Trump’s tariffs pass constitutional muster, the latest I&I/TIPP Poll shows.
When U.S. Supreme Court Justices are sworn in to office, they vow to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
With this in mind, the I&I/TIPP Poll this month asked voters simply: “How much confidence do you have in the U.S. Supreme Court to make decisions that are in the best interests of the country? “
Most Americans – by the slimmest possible majority, 50% – answered either “a great deal” (16%) or “somewhat” (34%). But 42% responded either “not much” (25%) or “none at all” (17%). Another 7% were not sure.
The national online poll was taken by 1,483 adult Americans from Nov. 25 to Nov. 29. The poll has a margin of error of +/-2.8 percentage points.
There were once again differences in how people viewed the high court, and, not surprisingly, political leaning of the respondents played a major role.
Only 42% of Democrats said they had confidence in the Court’s decision making, while 51% said they didn’t. Independents were slightly less confident, with just 40% expressing confidence while 51% said expressed a lack of confidence.
Not surprisingly, with a solid 6-3 conservative majority on the Court – and with Trump having appointed three of the nine sitting justices – Republicans are pretty well pleased: In the I&I/TIPP Poll, 69% expressed confidence, and just 26% a lack of confidence.
But another big difference stands out: men and women. When it comes to the Supreme Court, men (58% “great deal/some” confidence, vs. 38% “not much/none” confidence) are far more certain that the nine justices will do the right thing for the country than women at 43% confident, 47% not confident.
The score: Men, a plus-20 percentage point spread compared to women, at minus-4 percentage points, a huge confidence gap. Is that the residual effect of the Court’s decision to de-nationalize the abortion issue, and let the states deal with it instead?
One other surprisingly large difference came between investors and non-investors. Investors were 68% confident, 31% not confident, a plus-29 percentage point gap, compared to non-investors, 44% confident, 48% not confident, a minus-four percentage point difference. That’s a 33% net difference.
Investors make up just under a third of respondents. Do investors feel they have more at stake in the outcome of Supreme Court deliberations? Are they institutionalists, who believe that sound institutions make for a healthy country? Or are they just more conservative, in general, than others?
That wasn’t the only question. I&I/TIPP also asked about the hot-button topic of Trump’s tariffs, namely: “Do you support or oppose the Supreme Court limiting the President’s ability to impose tariffs without Congress?”
Overall, a 59% majority said they would support a court move to limit Trump’s tariffs unless Congress was involved, while 26% opposed it.
And that majority is real: Indeed, both major political parties, independents and third-party members support court curbs on Trump’s ability to impose tariffs: Democrats (72% support, 16% oppose); independents (55% support, 26% oppose); and Republicans (51% support, 37% oppose).
So the question becomes: What will happen if the high-court justices decide that Trump, as the nation’s chief executive, has the right to impose tariffs? Will Americans back the Court’s decision? Or will it be another public relations wound for the supremes?
It’s not a sterile, hypothetical debate. Following Trump’s lead, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has already vowed to send out tariff rebates, or “dividends,” in the first quarter of up to $2,000 per taxpayer, not including those in upper incomes.
Taxpayers getting a surprise pop of $2,000 in cash from the tariff haul – expected to come in at more than $300 billion this year – could alter how they view them.
“We’re going to be giving back refunds out of the tariffs because we’ve taken in literally trillions of dollars, and were going to be giving a nice dividend to the people, in addition to reducing debt,” Trump said at his December cabinet meeting. “As you know, I inherited a lot of debt, but it’s peanuts compared to the kind of numbers were talking about.”
But that won’t sway the Supreme Court, which seems leery of the idea that Trump can impose tariffs outside of extreme trade emergencies. Under the Constitution, taxes must be approved by Congress, except in extraordinary cases.
For this, Trump has relied on a loose reading of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which is what the Supreme Court will decide.
If the court decides Congress must OK Trump’s tariffs, will taxpayers expecting big rebates pressure their representatives to approve them?
And, even if Trump loses in court, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer has argued that there are other legal ways for the U.S. to raise trade revenues, though he doesn’t specify how.
“I’m confident that with other tools we have related to unfair trade practices, we can produce the revenues we need,” Greer said, adding, “It is a lot of money … It’s a big deal.”
Ultimately, as the latest I&I/TIPP Poll indicates, it might well be a “big deal” for many Americans if Trump’s promised tariff rebates go away. Not only will rebates not line Americans’ pockets, but the U.S. government (that is, taxpayers) might end up owing as much as $168 billion to businesses if the Trump administration loses its legal fight.
I worry about the IQ and ability to detect BS of the average US voter.
” not surprisingly, political leaning of the respondents played a major role.”
But, butt, butt, Traitor Roberts proclaimed that there are no Bronco Bama Judges.
“. . . what’s best for the U.S.” isn’t a meaningful question. The proper question would include some mention of the Constitution. But as another commented noted, the American people are no longer capable of rational, adult thought.
Okay, the job of the SCOTUS is not actually to try to “make decisions in the best interests of the United States.” Those tasks more properly belong to the legislative and executive branches. The SCOTUS and all inferior courts are tasked with enforcing the Constitution and other relevant laws as they exist without trying to making a value judgment about what is a good or bad thing for the country.
This isn’t a popularity contest or an awards competition as in show business.
The judges below the SCOTUS do not care——at all-—what anyone thinks outside themselves. The SCOTUS can make any decision to ruin anyone’s life and not look back.
I personally think Barrett and others should not be allowed to write books and go on book tours. They should be forced to give that up because it taints their already weak gravitas.
The judges take away all of our rights-—we should take theirs.
Roberts is a true disappointment.
“Roberts is a true disappointment.”
_____________________________________
Absolutely.
But the question that needs to be asked, is do we the people, believe the USSC will apply the CONSTITUTION to whatever issue is at hand, and nothing else? That should be the standard.
“....it taints their already weak gravitas.”
Doesn’t the Wide Latina still carry around a fair amount of gravitas?
“The judges take away all of our rights-—we should take theirs.”
Certainly the lower courts need to be heavily reined in.
SCOTUS seems to self direct to carry a pretty light load in these days of Elias Lawfare.
Maybe SCOTUS needs to be expanded by Trump to assist in getting on with this workload?
their job isn’t to do what is best for the American people, their job is to interpret the Constitution.
You have the correct question...
Congress are yugely derelict in the performance of their dootys and are currently incapable of handling Tariffs and Customs Duties.
So what is Constitutional and what is in the best interests of the USA can easily be at odds.
Conservatives just do not poll. Hence the reason for the media to tout polling so often.
However, the SCOTUS interprets the US Constitution. It appears those polled, over 80% liberal, are not too happy with the US Constitution.
Liberals hate rules.
Good post. I have to try harder to rein in my bitterness at the courts and judicial system. I have a personal reason for a grudge as I may someday discuss in a bio here.
Well lets see how they handle the birthright citizenship issue. If they can’t properly interpret the 14th amendment we’re in serious trouble.
Let me just stipulate that I have been to Court a few times.
I largely found that the Legal System rarely provides more Justice for you than you choose to afford.
“...in a bio...”
I would hope that such would not be part of an Opus.....
Thanks.
The Yenta, La Gorda, and Pork Chop.
After ObamaCare and the 2020 election???
Please.
I used to hold onto a magazine cartoon of a man with his back to the viewer, facing a judge at the bench:
“And since you have been found not guilty, I am going to let you off with a warning.”
Lawyer to Client: The evidence shows we have a good case you are innocent. How much justice can you afford?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.