Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

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

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.

Read More

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

U.S. Supreme Court

Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, universities are scrambling to maintain diversity through “race-neutral” alternatives they believe will be inherently fair. New economic research reveals that colorblind policies may systematically create inequality in ways more pervasive than even the notorious “old boy” network.

The “old boy” network, as its name suggests, is nothing new—evoking smoky cigar lounges or golf courses where business ties are formed, careers are launched, and those not invited are left behind. Opportunity reproduces itself, passed down like an inheritance if you belong to the “right” group. The old boy network is not the only example of how a social network can discriminate. In fact, my research shows it may not even be the best one. And how social networks discriminate completely changes the debate about diversity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Rethinking Drug Policy: From Punishment to Empowerment
holding hands
Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦 on Unsplash

Rethinking Drug Policy: From Punishment to Empowerment

America’s drug policy is broken. For decades, we’ve focused primarily on the supply side—interdicting smugglers, prosecuting dealers, and escalating penalties while neglecting the demand side. Individuals who use drugs, more often than not, do so out of desperation, trauma, or addiction. This imbalance has cost lives, strained law enforcement, and failed to stem the tide of overdose deaths.

Fentanyl now kills an estimated 80,000 Americans annually. In response, some leaders have proposed extreme measures, including capital punishment for traffickers. But if we apply that logic consistently, what do we say about tobacco? Cigarette smoking and secondhand smoke kill nearly 480,000 Americans

Keep ReadingShow less
From Gerrymandering to Threats Faith in Democracy and Constitutional Erosion

U.S. Constitution

Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

From Gerrymandering to Threats Faith in Democracy and Constitutional Erosion

Many Americans have lost faith in the basic principles and form of the Constitutional Republic, as set forth by the Founders. People are abandoning Democratic ideals to create systems that multiply offenses against Constitutional safeguards, materializing in book banning, speech-restricting, and recent attempts to enact gerrymandering that dilutes the votes of “political opponents.” This represents Democratic erosion and a trend that endangers Constitutional checks and representative governance.

First, the recent gerrymandering, legal precedent, and founding principles should be reexamined, specifically, around the idea that our Founders did not predict this type of partisan map-drawing.

Keep ReadingShow less