Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories
Protesters holding signs

Project 2025: Abortion policy

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is a threat to American democracy

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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

Man atop a mountain
Democracy

America needs to open new frontiers

Vice President Harris at a podium
Election 2024

Will America dare break the glass?

Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito
Rule of Law

Is the Supreme Court partisan?

Read More

Department of Labor building in Washington, DC
Flickr

Project 2025: The Department of Labor

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is an ambitious manifesto to redesign the federal government and its many administrative agencies to support and sustain neo-conservative dominance for the next decade. One of the agencies in its crosshairs is the Department of Labor, as well as its affiliated agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Project 2025 proposes a remake of the Department of Labor in order to roll back decades of labor laws and rights amidst a nostalgic “back to the future” framing based on race, gender, religion and anti-abortion sentiment. But oddly, tucked into the corners of the document are some real nuggets of innovative and progressive thinking that propose certain labor rights which even many liberals have never dared to propose.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
mscornelius/Getty Images

We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beau Breslin on C-SPAN
C-CSPAN screenshot

Project 2025: A C-SPAN interview

Beau Breslin, a regular contributor to The Fulcrum, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” about Project 2025.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.” He writes “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a Fulcrum series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.

Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.

The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2024