Minnesota Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar displayed once again why Americans should view her grand statements with circumspection when she claimed during a town hall that the Supreme Court’s approval rating is the lowest of the three branches of the federal government.
Omar, whose entire candidacy and time in office has been shrouded in mistrust, misunderstandings, and missteps, has once again stepped in it as a result of her frustration with classic American values.
Omar, like many Democrats, was staunchly opposed to the nomination of Supreme Court Amy Coney Barrett who was confirmed to the nation’s court last weekend. That frustration has lead many in Omar’s party to call for court-packing, which would essentially be the practice of undercutting the court’s current structure by adding extra judges, upsetting not only the way it has traditionally functioned but giving liberals a chance to change the majority in their favor.
According to the Daily Wire, Omar made her claims about the court during a virtual town hall last week:
“Of our three branches, the judiciary or the Supreme Court has one of the lowest approval ratings with the United States electorate,” Omar said during a virtual conversation about immigration with Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI).
“I think it’s, like, a 10% approval rating,” Omar added.
However, the facts of the case are somewhat different, according to the Daily Wire’s research. They reported that in fact Omar’s branch of government, Congress, has the lowest approval rating at a slim 18 percent, according to a July Gallup poll.
That is contrasted by the executive branch, with President Donald Trump at the helm, which had an overall approval rating of 41 percent, and the Supreme Court actually had the highest rating among the branches, and their highest in over a decade, with 58 percent approval.
Omar’s glaring mistake did not go unnoticed on social media. Real Clear Politics’ A.G. Hamilton wrote, “I realize Ilhan Omar has never been big on facts or reality, but this is the exact opposite of true. Great deal or a lot of confidence in institutions: SCOTUS – 40%, Congress- 13%, Presidency- 39%.”
Hamilton went on to cite an Emerson poll that showed evidence that Omar’s approval rating paled in comparison to that of the Supreme Court, tweeting, “In fact, Ilhan Omar herself has a -21 approval rating (25% favorable vs 46% unfavorable) […] While The Supreme Court has a +10 approval rating (53-43)[.]”
Essentially, social media reminded Omar that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. They also shouldn’t be pointing to other people in bigger houses, and say that they live on the street because they happened to see them walking their dogs.
Another polarizing political figure from recent days had a lot to say about the judiciary system, and that’s the recently empaneled Barrett. During her speech at the White House after her nomination was confirmed by the Senate, Barrett took the time to point out how important a judiciary that is devoid of political leanings and dependent on political opinion:
“I have spent a good amount of time over the last month at the Senate; both in meetings with individual senators and in days of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The confirmation process has made ever-clearer to me one of the fundamental differences between the federal judiciary and the United States Senate, and perhaps the most acute is the role of policy preferences. It is the job of a senator to pursue her policy preferences; in fact, it would be a dereliction of duty for her to put policy goals aside.
“By contrast, it is the job of a judge to resist her policy preferences. It would be a dereliction of duty for her to give in to them. Federal judges don’t stand for election, thus, they have no basis for claiming that their preferences reflect those of the people. This separation of duty from political preference is what makes the judiciary distinct among the three branches of government. A judge declares independence not only from Congress and the president, but also from the private beliefs that might otherwise move her. The judicial oath captures the essence of the judicial duty; the rule of law must always control.”