Apparently the popular verdict is that votes regarding campaign funds in the Supreme Court had been split along party lines with the five conservative justices in favor and the four more liberal justices against it. The Republicans obviously were very happy with the decision and the Democrats and Obama very unhappy. So if a poll shows that the people of the United States had been "vehemently" opposed to the decision, does this mean that the Poll could have been partisan as well? If a Supreme Court that is supposed to be the ultimate in unbiased justice cannot make unpartisan decisions, how can a poll be unpartisan?
|A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns.
As noted by the Post's Dan Eggen, the poll's findings show "remarkably strong agreement" across the board, with roughly 80% of Americans saying that they're against the Court's 5-4 decision. Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling.
The poll's findings could enhance the possibility of getting a broad range of support behind a movement in Congress to pass legislation that would offset the Court's decision. Of those polled, 72% said they supported congressional action to reverse its effects. Sen. Charles Schumer, who's leading the reform effort in the Senate, told the Post that he hoped to get "strong and quick bi-partisan support" behind a bill that "passes constitutional muster but will still effectively limit the influence of special interests."