AP poll misleads on issue of judges
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
Gotta hand it to the AP for this misleading poll. I'm sure our friendly neighborhood troll would love to point to this one as stating that the public is not in favor of any of Bush's judicial nominees, but anyone that spends even a few seconds actually reading the questions and answers in the poll will see that is not what this poll indicates at all.
Lets examine things a bit more closely, shall we.
From IWon News, originally from Associated Press. Headline is linked.
Poll: Most Want Thorough Check of Judges
May 21, 10:08 AM (ET)
By WILL LESTER
WASHINGTON (AP) - About four in five Americans want the Senate to thoroughly examine the president's nominees to be federal judges - an attitude shared by a majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents questioned in a new poll.
The rest say those nominees should get the benefit of the doubt and get approved by the Senate without much scrutiny, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Friday.
The widespread desire for an aggressive role by the Senate is one of the few aspects of this divisive issue that gets widespread agreement.
Respondents favored conservative over liberal judges in general, 47 percent to 39 percent. As for a possible Supreme Court nominee, 52 percent said they felt comfortable that President Bush would pick the right kind of justice, while 46 percent said they weren't.
Senators are locked in a fierce fight over what is required to approve the more controversial federal court nominees. Republicans want them approved by a simple majority, while the Democrats want to require the 60 votes needed to override a blocking filibuster. The Democrats say a minority party needs the method to ensure checks on the majority.
Both sides point to the Senate's constitutional duty to "advise and consent" on presidential nominations. Republicans say that means great deference is given to the president, while Democrats say it means those put forward should be closely scrutinized.
Senate Republicans have set the stage for a showdown Tuesday. Unless centrists seeking a compromise can strike a deal before then, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will force a test vote Tuesday on Texas Judge Priscilla Owen's nomination to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. That could set in motion a series of events designed to make filibusters illegal.
"All this partisan bickering is just shutting the country down," said Stephen Hart, a conservative-leaning political independent from Sun Prairie, Wis.
The poll found 78 percent believe the Senate should take an "assertive role" examining judicial nominees. Whether people prefer conservative judges or liberal judges, most want the Senate to closely examine judicial nominees.
... more at linked article
A great graphic related to the article:
Now, read the questions that are asked carefully.
Question number 1 asks: The president's federal judge nominees must be approved by the Senate. Do you think the Senate should .... and then offers two choices:
Followed up by question number 2: President Bush may have the opportunity to appoint several new justices to the Supreme Court. How comfortable are you that he would nominate the right kind of justice? which offers some new choices:
The first question is the one that is the most mis-leading. All it is really asking is whether or not poll respondents feel that the Senate must scrutinize the nominees that the President sends them. Of course people will answer yes. What it doesn't do is define scrutinize or scrutiny. To Democrats, or rabidly anti-Bush liberals, scrutinize may mean "under no circumstances should the nominees ever be allowed to become judges", while to most sensible individuals scrutinize may simply mean properly review the credentials of the judges that are nominated.
What many of the respondents may not have realized, and what I'm sure the AP/IPSOS didn't inform the respondents of, is that all nominees -- for every office -- are vetted and reviewed. All have their backgrounds thoroughly checked. How was it Zoe Baird and other Clinton nominees were determined to have "nanny problems" and other issues? The same for Bush's nominees (remember Linda Chavez?)
All judicial nominees are reviewed thoroughly when they are sent before the Senate. The Senate judiciary commitee reviews them, and members of that commitee review the FBI files and records (though, notably, people like Senator Harry Reid are not supposed to review their FBI files, but that's a different story).
So, this poll seems to be asking a completely unnecessary question about whether or not the Senate needs to be even more assertive in examining nominees and perpetually postponing votes on them.
The second question offers good news and bad news. A clear majority of the respondents seem to be answering that they feel comfortable or very comfortable with the potential choices that President Bush would make. 29% (almost one third) feel very comfortable. Add in the 23% that feel somewhat comfortable, and it's over 50%. You could even add in a few of the "not too comfortables", as there's still a little wriggle room in their response, since they aren't going for the absolute "not at all comfortable" answer, which just under one third of the respondents (32%) choose.
Personally I see this as very bad news for Democrats. If the best numbers that can be mustered in the negative response is 32%, then not even all of the 48% (give or take) of U.S. citizens that voted Democratic (or at least voted against President Bush) are there in their worries over Pres. Bush's possible Supreme Court nominees. Even if you took all of the 14% that say they are "Not too comfortable" and add it to the 32% that are "Not at all comfortable", the best you can muster is 46%, which would mean that virtually every anti-Bush vote in the last election is dead set against any potential Bush supreme court nominee. And again, answering "Not too comfortable" does not indicate that you are absolutely negative, just that you have some potential worries.
Again, I would expect some troll-ish new article soon indicating that MOST DON'T TRUST BUSH ON JUDGE NOMS. or some such (I should demand payment in advance for that subject line, since it's highly likely to be used), but again, even a MORON's reading of the numbers don't support such "facts".
Lets examine things a bit more closely, shall we.
From IWon News, originally from Associated Press. Headline is linked.
Poll: Most Want Thorough Check of Judges
May 21, 10:08 AM (ET)
By WILL LESTER
WASHINGTON (AP) - About four in five Americans want the Senate to thoroughly examine the president's nominees to be federal judges - an attitude shared by a majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents questioned in a new poll.
The rest say those nominees should get the benefit of the doubt and get approved by the Senate without much scrutiny, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Friday.
The widespread desire for an aggressive role by the Senate is one of the few aspects of this divisive issue that gets widespread agreement.
Respondents favored conservative over liberal judges in general, 47 percent to 39 percent. As for a possible Supreme Court nominee, 52 percent said they felt comfortable that President Bush would pick the right kind of justice, while 46 percent said they weren't.
Senators are locked in a fierce fight over what is required to approve the more controversial federal court nominees. Republicans want them approved by a simple majority, while the Democrats want to require the 60 votes needed to override a blocking filibuster. The Democrats say a minority party needs the method to ensure checks on the majority.
Both sides point to the Senate's constitutional duty to "advise and consent" on presidential nominations. Republicans say that means great deference is given to the president, while Democrats say it means those put forward should be closely scrutinized.
Senate Republicans have set the stage for a showdown Tuesday. Unless centrists seeking a compromise can strike a deal before then, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will force a test vote Tuesday on Texas Judge Priscilla Owen's nomination to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. That could set in motion a series of events designed to make filibusters illegal.
"All this partisan bickering is just shutting the country down," said Stephen Hart, a conservative-leaning political independent from Sun Prairie, Wis.
The poll found 78 percent believe the Senate should take an "assertive role" examining judicial nominees. Whether people prefer conservative judges or liberal judges, most want the Senate to closely examine judicial nominees.
... more at linked article
A great graphic related to the article:
Now, read the questions that are asked carefully.
Question number 1 asks: The president's federal judge nominees must be approved by the Senate. Do you think the Senate should .... and then offers two choices:
- Give the president's judicial nominees the benefit of the doubt and approve them without a lot of scrutiny
- Take an assertive role in examining each nominee
or
Followed up by question number 2: President Bush may have the opportunity to appoint several new justices to the Supreme Court. How comfortable are you that he would nominate the right kind of justice? which offers some new choices:
- Very comfortable
- Somewhat comfortable
- Not too comfortable
- Not at all comfortable
- Not sure
and finally
The first question is the one that is the most mis-leading. All it is really asking is whether or not poll respondents feel that the Senate must scrutinize the nominees that the President sends them. Of course people will answer yes. What it doesn't do is define scrutinize or scrutiny. To Democrats, or rabidly anti-Bush liberals, scrutinize may mean "under no circumstances should the nominees ever be allowed to become judges", while to most sensible individuals scrutinize may simply mean properly review the credentials of the judges that are nominated.
What many of the respondents may not have realized, and what I'm sure the AP/IPSOS didn't inform the respondents of, is that all nominees -- for every office -- are vetted and reviewed. All have their backgrounds thoroughly checked. How was it Zoe Baird and other Clinton nominees were determined to have "nanny problems" and other issues? The same for Bush's nominees (remember Linda Chavez?)
All judicial nominees are reviewed thoroughly when they are sent before the Senate. The Senate judiciary commitee reviews them, and members of that commitee review the FBI files and records (though, notably, people like Senator Harry Reid are not supposed to review their FBI files, but that's a different story).
So, this poll seems to be asking a completely unnecessary question about whether or not the Senate needs to be even more assertive in examining nominees and perpetually postponing votes on them.
The second question offers good news and bad news. A clear majority of the respondents seem to be answering that they feel comfortable or very comfortable with the potential choices that President Bush would make. 29% (almost one third) feel very comfortable. Add in the 23% that feel somewhat comfortable, and it's over 50%. You could even add in a few of the "not too comfortables", as there's still a little wriggle room in their response, since they aren't going for the absolute "not at all comfortable" answer, which just under one third of the respondents (32%) choose.
Personally I see this as very bad news for Democrats. If the best numbers that can be mustered in the negative response is 32%, then not even all of the 48% (give or take) of U.S. citizens that voted Democratic (or at least voted against President Bush) are there in their worries over Pres. Bush's possible Supreme Court nominees. Even if you took all of the 14% that say they are "Not too comfortable" and add it to the 32% that are "Not at all comfortable", the best you can muster is 46%, which would mean that virtually every anti-Bush vote in the last election is dead set against any potential Bush supreme court nominee. And again, answering "Not too comfortable" does not indicate that you are absolutely negative, just that you have some potential worries.
Again, I would expect some troll-ish new article soon indicating that MOST DON'T TRUST BUSH ON JUDGE NOMS. or some such (I should demand payment in advance for that subject line, since it's highly likely to be used), but again, even a MORON's reading of the numbers don't support such "facts".