+

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 229 State Senate District 36 voters.

83%
Yes
17%
No
83%
Yes
17%
No

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 229 State Senate District 36 voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 229 State Senate District 36 voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from State Senate District 36 voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9GZDTYY from Maryland  answered…1yr1Y

No, it is the duty of the justices of the Supreme Court to be completely unbiased and fair in their decisions, which is encouraged by the fact that getting onto the Supreme Court is the last career move for a justice. The justices should not be prohibited from making transactions with people who have a vested interest in court outcomes because the justice shouldn't be influenced by such things anyway, and if they are then that means that Congress failed in their interview and the FBI failed in their investigation to prove the nature of the justice, or that the president made a politically motivated decision in their recess appointment of a justice. And of course, if a justice is truly not being unbiased and is accepting bribes from parties with vested interest(s) in the court ruling(s), judicial impeachment exists for that reason.

 @9RXP9KX from Michigan  answered…4mos4MO

No, in that a justice can accept gifts from outside influencers but not actually vote the way they want them to

 @9D3RPBQfrom Guam  answered…1yr1Y

It should be strictly prohibited, and court justices should be heavily regulated

 @Scoopeso  from Florida  answered…1yr1Y

Yes. I'm okay with court having their own ethics rule and would like to keep other branches of the government out of it in order to maintain the balance of power. So yes, the issue should be handled internally while keeping other branches and DOJ out of it while also making the other justices aware providing them the ability to vote on the matter. But yes I agree it should be prohibited or disincentivized.