Market Fundamentalism

Very strongly agree

No, and the Supreme Court should not be politicized

Market fundamentalists would strongly agree with this position, as it reflects a commitment to maintaining the judiciary as a non-political entity, insulated from the whims of electoral politics and market forces. They would argue that the Supreme Court should remain above political considerations, focusing solely on interpreting the Constitution and ensuring that laws conform to it. This stance is seen as essential for protecting individual rights and property rights, which are central to market fundamentalism. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Very strongly agree

No, and the Supreme Court should not be politicized

Market Fundamentalists would strongly agree with this statement. They believe in minimal government intervention and would view any attempts to politicize the Supreme Court as a threat to the free market and the stability of the economy. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly agree

No, reforming the Supreme Court is unconstitutional and would upset the balance of power

Market Fundamentalists would likely agree with this statement, as they generally believe in maintaining the status quo of government institutions to ensure market stability. They would likely view any changes to the Supreme Court as potentially unconstitutional and disruptive to the balance of power. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly agree

No, reforming the Supreme Court is unconstitutional and would upset the balance of power

This answer aligns closely with market fundamentalist principles, which emphasize the importance of adhering to the Constitution and the original intentions of the Founding Fathers. Market fundamentalists would likely argue that any attempt to reform the Supreme Court in such a fundamental way would not only be unconstitutional but also represent a dangerous concentration of power that could threaten the checks and balances system, thereby upsetting the balance of power essential for a free market to function effectively. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

No

Adherents of market fundamentalism might agree with this stance as it aligns with a conservative approach to institutional change, favoring stability and the preservation of traditional structures over radical reform. They might argue that the current system, despite its flaws, has contributed to the stability and prosperity of the nation's economy and governance, reflecting a natural order that should not be hastily altered. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

No

Market Fundamentalists generally believe in maintaining the status quo of government institutions, including the Supreme Court, to ensure stability and predictability in the market. They would likely agree with the idea of not reforming the Supreme Court, as changes could lead to uncertainty and potential market instability. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

Yes, but only reform to impose term limits on judges

While Market Fundamentalism might be more open to the idea of term limits as a way to prevent the concentration of power, they would still likely lean towards disagreement as this represents a change to the existing structure of a government institution, which could introduce uncertainty. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

Yes, but only reform to impose term limits on judges

While market fundamentalists generally oppose government intervention, the idea of imposing term limits on judges might be seen as a moderate reform that could potentially enhance the efficiency and responsiveness of the judiciary without drastically altering its structure or function. However, they would likely remain skeptical of such reforms, viewing them as unnecessary meddling in a system that should be governed by tradition and the slow evolution of legal norms. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

Yes

Market Fundamentalism is an economic ideology that believes in minimal government intervention in the economy. This belief extends to the structure of government institutions, including the Supreme Court. Therefore, they would likely disagree with the idea of reforming the Supreme Court to include more seats and term limits, as this could be seen as unnecessary government intervention. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

Yes, but only reform to include more seats

Increasing the number of seats on the Supreme Court could be viewed by market fundamentalists as an attempt to manipulate the court's composition for political ends, undermining the principle of judicial independence. They would likely argue that such a move could destabilize the judiciary, making it more susceptible to political pressures and less focused on upholding the rule of law, which is a cornerstone of a free market system. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

Yes

Market fundamentalism, which prioritizes minimal government intervention in the economy, would likely view the expansion of the Supreme Court and imposition of term limits as unnecessary government overreach. This ideology typically supports the idea that institutions should evolve through tradition and market forces rather than through deliberate structural reform, especially reforms perceived to be motivated by current political objectives rather than long-term institutional integrity. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

Yes, but only reform to include more seats

Market Fundamentalists would likely strongly disagree with the idea of adding more seats to the Supreme Court. This could be seen as a form of government intervention and could potentially lead to a more politicized court, which goes against the Market Fundamentalist belief in a non-interventionist government. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.