The latest on the presidential horse race.

Poll: Support Grows for State’s Rights Against the Federal Government and the Supreme Court

A recent Rasmussen Reports poll has revealed that an increasing number of pollsters are starting to believe that individual states should have the right to boycott U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

In a February poll the results sided with state governments and suggested that voters were more inclined to believe in their state’s ability to lead and protect their interests.

  • Which government does a better job?
    • State government – 28%
    • Local government – 27%
    • Not sure – 24%
    • Federal government – 21%
  • Does the federal government have too much/not enough influence over state governments?
    • Too much influence – 47%
    • Balanced – 27%
    • Not enough influence – 18%
    • Not sure – 8%
  • Should states have the right to opt out of federal government programs that they don’t agree with?
    • Yes – 54%
    • No – 33%
    • Not sure – 13%
  • Should states have the right to opt out of federally mandated programs if the federal government doesn’t help pay for them?
    • Yes – 61%
    • No – 24%
    • Not sure – 15%
  • Should states have the right to ignore federal court rulings if their elected officials disagree with them?
    • Yes – 24%
    • No – 58%
    • Not sure – 18%

Fast forward to an early July poll, a larger number of voters have concluded that individual states should have the right to ignore Supreme Court decisions. 33 percent of voters believed that a state should be able to ignore a Supreme Court decision, 52 percent said no, while 15 percent said yes.

A large portion of conservative voters are still angry with the recent Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage. The shift in numbers is to be expected and nothing out of the ordinary when a major decision is passed that is heavily divided on ideological lines.

Photo credit: Utah Politco Hub.

  • CelesteJak

    Polygamy will be the next step in the marriage debate. Already there has been a lawsuit filed in federal court demanding equal rights for multiples in marriage. Under the equal protection clause, there would be NO way for the Supreme Court to deny them their right to marry. Next will come children and adult marriages. After all, if a ten year old girl has the right to make a decision what to do with her own body when deciding to have an abortion and the parents have NO right to even KNOW about the abortion (which is the case in many states), then certainly she should have the right to decide who can impregnate her. If it is her 24 year old teacher, well, since she was determined old enough by the law to decided on her own that she will terminate the baby, why is the sexual contact to create that life any different? And if she is old enough to make life and death decisions about herself and the unborn child, surely she is old enough to make decisions about who and when to marry. Changing the definition of marriage and giving children the right to unfettered abortion, makes for a very dangerous and slippery slope…and the Supreme Court just pushed America off it!