Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
Supreme Court

The Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act Decision Will Fuel the “Disuniting” of the United States and the Unraveling of American Democracy

Trump’s Denaturalization Push and the Erosion of Legal Immigration

Trump’s Denaturalization Push and the Erosion of Legal Immigration

Judicial Courage?

Judicial Courage?

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell sitting with his hands folded in front of him.

Why the Decision Not to Prosecute Jerome Powell Damages Democracy

Some MAGA loyalists have turned on Trump. Why the rest haven’t

Some MAGA loyalists have turned on Trump. Why the rest haven’t

Ketanji Brown Jackson gets widespread support even as partisan division grows

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks during her confirmation hearing on March 22.

China News Service/Getty Images
David Meyers
By David MeyersMar 23, 2022
David Meyers

David Meyers is the Executive Editor of The Fulcrum. Before launching The Fulcrum, David spent more than two decades at CQ Roll Call, a leading publisher of political news and information. During his time there, David served as managing editor of Roll Call (“the newspaper of Capitol Hill”) and as managing editor of member information and research, which included co-editing the definitive biographical directory of Congress, “Politics in America.” David went on to lead all of CQ Roll Call’s congressional research teams as vice president of research and content development before shifting to a revenue and strategy role as vice president of business operations for Roll Call, working with the advertising and editorial teams to develop new revenue models and expand the company’s events business. David lives in Fairfax, Va., with his wife, two daughters and rottweiler. A graduate of Tufts University, David is a past president of the Tufts University Alumni Association. He is also a past president of the Washington Press Club Foundation, which works to celebrate and advance the role of women and minorities in the media. David currently serves on the board of directors for Temple B’nai Shalom in Fairfax Station.

See More Writings by author

Ketanji Brown Jackson nearly set a record among Supreme Court nominees for initial public support following her nomination by President Biden.

The Gallup pollsters have asked the public for first impressions of all but four nominees since 1987. When surveyed about Jackson, 58 percent said they support her nomination. Only Chief Justice John Roberts edged out Jackson, pulling 59 percent in 2005.

While Jackson performs well among Democrats and independents, she joins her three predecessors in being the most divisive nominees since Gallup began asking the question.

Not surprisingly, Democrats overwhelmingly support Jackson’s nomination, with 88 percent saying they would vote in favor, while just 31 percent of Republicans and 55 percent of independents back Jackson.

While only one third of Republicans say they would vote for Jackson, she performs better among the GOP than any of Donald Trump’s nominees initially polled among Democrats.

During his presidency, Trump put three justices on the Supreme Court — Neil Gorsch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — and all were initially supported by less than a one quarter of Democrats.

The only nominees to get at least 40 percent support from the opposite party were Clarence Thomas in 1991, Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 and Roberts in 2005.

Made with Flourish

Historically, Supreme Court nominees did not get overwhelming support from the president’s party. With the exception of Roberts, no pre-Trump nominee had initial support from more than three-quarters of the president’s party.

The largest gaps between party support have all occurred since 2017, with Sonia Sotomayor as the only additional nominee to have an initial gap above 50 points.

Brown has more support among independents (55 percent) than any other nominee, just edging out Sotomayor and Roberts.

Opposition to Supreme Court nominees generally grows over the course of the confirmation process, according to Gallup.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding confirmation hearings on Jackson’s nomination this week, and public opinion may shift by the time the Senate votes.


Latest news

Congressional Record: Capitol Hill’s Bipartisan Concert Starring Musical Congress Members
Bridging & Common Ground

Congressional Record: Capitol Hill’s Bipartisan Concert Starring Musical Congress Members

Preschool children playing with colorful shapes
Governance & Legislation

America Keeps Turning Its Back on Childcare; Families are Paying the Price.

Six Emerging Journalists Selected as 2026 Summer Fulcrum Fellows

Six Emerging Journalists Selected as 2026 Summer Fulcrum Fellows

Medicaid Cuts Could Threaten Key Student Services at IL Schools
Health

Medicaid Cuts Could Threaten Key Student Services at IL Schools

Read More

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

Members of the House Judiciary Committee during the hearing on the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Credit: Olivia Ardito

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing last Wednesday examining claims that the Southern Poverty Law Center had funded the very hate groups the center aims to dismantle. Tensions were high as Republicans and Democrats fired back at each other. Noticeably absent was a representative from the center, a non-profit that since 1971 has fought for racial justice and against white supremacy.

The hearing came after the Texas Attorney General Ken Pax­ton announced last Monday that he was investigating the center. The U.S. Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center in April for allegedly funneling money to people associated with violent extremist groups. The group has flatly rejected the accusations. While Republicans backed these claims, Democrats viewed the allegations as part of the Trump-backed efforts to hinder “DEI” and other racial justice initiatives.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

An analysis of gun violence, political extremism, Islamophobia, and community resilience in America after the San Diego Islamic Center shooting.

GemaIbarra / Getty Images

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

Last Monday, two teenage gunmen opened fire outside the Islamic Center of San Diego, murdering three Muslim men. Unfortunately, this is the type of horror Americans have been conditioned to expect. After years of political stagnation on gun safety and ongoing hateful acts of violence, our president has signaled once again to children, to the Muslim community, and to everyone else: he does not care if you get shot.

Gun violence has been on the rise in the United States for too long. Perhaps the most harrowing consequence is that gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children. Whether from school shootings, homicides, suicides, or accidents, the gun-death rate for children is nearly five in every 100,000. In fact, the number of domestic deaths due to gun violence is about as many as U.S. military deaths in every war since World War I combined. More children have been lost to gun violence since 2020 than troops lost since 9/11. Yet even with such a striking death toll—and one affecting children no less—happening on our own soil, Vice President J.D. Vance calls it a “fact of life.”

Keep ReadingShow less
The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime
Photo by Ian Hutchinson on Unsplash

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026