Gallup and Rasmussen have the first overnight polling on Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Although the two polls show a broadly similar, and moderately favorable, reaction, I'm going to focus on the Gallup data because it provides for a comparison with George W. Bush's three nominees to the Court.
Gallup asked its respondents to rate each nominee as excellent, good, fair or poor. I'm going to create a quick Likert-type score for each one, assigning 10 points for each response of 'excellent, 7 points for 'good', 3 points for 'fair' and 0 points for 'poor'; cases in which the respondent had no opinion on the nominee are discarded.
By this very rudimentary analysis, Sotomayor rates as a slightly more popular selection than Samuel Alito and Harriet Miers, and slightly less popular than John Roberts.
Still, the differences are small across -- just barely on the fringes of statistical significance -- the board. In certain ways, it's disappointing to see that the public wasn't better able to distinguish Roberts, who objectively speaking was a strong nominee, from Miers, who, um, wasn't. It seems like 80 percent of the public is making a snap judgment on the basis of partisanship (which should, of course, be helping Sotomayor because of the Democratic plurality right now) whereas only a small fraction are actually looking at the nominee's credentials.
Of course, public opinion can change as they learn more about a nominee -- as it did in an unfavorable way for Miers. So perhaps that small vanguard of people who are not judging the nominee on a partisan basis are leading indicators of sorts. Of the 18 Republican Senators who voted on Sotomayor in 1998, 7 or 39 percent voted to confirm her. Translated over the entire, 40-member Republican caucus, that would translate to 15-16 yea votes, which when coupled with what will presumably be 59 Democratic yeas, would produce a 74- or 75-vote margin for her overall. That would put her ahead of Samuel Alito's 58-vote confirmation (indeed, she could beat Alito without any Republican votes) but just behind Roberts' 78.
5.28.2009
Roberts > Sotomayor > Alito?
@ 12:19 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments
I think this is one of those issues were public opinion is irrelevant. The question is 'is she qualified'. And I don't think there are too many people who can make a judgement on if she is qualified or not. (There are only 99 currently, hopefully 100 in the very near future who are charged with doing so, but I am not even convinced that every Senator could really make a reasoned judgement on whether or not she is qualified).
From what just about any legal expert I have heard speak on the issue has said, my belief is that she is qualified. Beyond that there really is no judgement to be made it seems to me. Its fascinating to me that the right has focussed all of its early attack on Sotomayor's personal qualities, rather than any legal controbversies. Even the New Haven case seems to have gone relatively quiet over the out of context quotes and supposed reverse racism.
Miers was an appalling nomination...I think the interesting question will be how Sotomayor trends compared to Miers.
That said, I don't think it matters all that much. Unless there is some tax/nanny problem we don't know about, what do the Rs achieve yb blocking her? Wood or Kagan instead? That's no victory.
The media and politicians love justices as a red meat issue, and (at least on the surface) so does the public. However, once it comes down to an individual candidate people have a much harder time coming down against a nominee because I think that most people ultimately look most at whether or not an individual is qualified. Right the talking heads are having a grand old time going on about "activist" this and "racist" that but when it comes to the proceedings my guess is she will have no trouble passing. There is just not the political willpower to pursue this, not after the whirlwind of Obama issues people are already trying to decide on.
Another point that those polls don't seem to consider is that if the nominee is perceived to be replacing a like-minded justice (Sotomayor for Souter for instance)then the Senate and the public are less likely to take on an obstructionist role as the changing of the guard would not result in a change of the status quo (something people always tend to favor over unknown future outcomes).
These ratings reflect where respondants lie on the ideological spectrum, not qualifications. As a progressive, I wish Sotomayor was more lefty, so I would rank her as only good. Roberts and Miers would have been marked poor if someone had asked me (Miers blech-unqualified). Conservatives' ranking is the opposite.
Democrats need to gain control of the meme here.
But how does she poll against Mankiw's grandmother?
:)
I have to echo the comments that assert polling on judicial nominees is of very little value, largely because people in general know so little of what being a judge entails.
Obviously partisanship plays a role in the public's perception of a judge and/or nominee, and Judge Sotomayor is no different.
Chief Justice Roberts was extremely qualified from a legal perspective, and still had 22 votes against him. So it appears as if Senators are no different than the public.
Longing for the days when only 3 Senators voted against Justice Ginsburg, an ideologically extreme nominee from any perspective.
Josh,
Your not wrong, but the days of 'advise and consent' have gone from the Senates vision of SCOTUS appointments. Its all about the politics. I think thats one reason why the conservative echo chamber has cranked itself up since the nomination was announced. It knows that beyond finding a real 'silver bullet' to kill the nomination with then noise is all they can do with the nomination.
Why poll people on their opinion of Sotomayor? Why not poll cats on their opinion of her qualifications. Almost as many cats as humans are qualified to offer their opinion of her qualifications for job.
This is a case of the medium dictating the message. Because we have the technology to quickly poll on any subject we insist that the polls communicate a message. Polls such as this are noise. It is nonsense.
I agree with Dan entirely. Most people have very little idea of who this woman is and while they are getting info from the media, whether or not the judgments they thus make are informed is still questionable.
Take a poll of not the public at large, but rather of a group whose constituency might have familiarity with Sotomayor (or Roberts or Alito or Miers) and I think the results from that will be more informative (and trustworthy).
That poll is about name recognition, nothing else. I doubt any of them could name a decision to back their poll answer.
Nate…
Why not do some legwork on, say, public opinion regarding West Bank settlements? While it is nice to get a little extra background on Sotomayor, she’s pretty much a done deal already. I don’t think any sane person doubts she will win confirmation.
The situation in the Middle East is probably much more worrisome to the average American than who sits on the Supreme Court.
I have a sneaking suspicion that those numbers are going to fall a good bit if most people learn that she was a member of a far-left, pro-illegal activity, anti-assimilation group.
Even worse, the group she was a member of gave an award to someone who'd made eliminationist comments years before.
Given how close the nominees are in opinion to one another, it would be interesting to see how one's tendency to support a SCOTUS nomination correlates with their (dis)approval of the nominating president. I would expect it to be quite high, especially for recent presidents (Miers being the exception).
All is not lost if she doesn't go through. Heck even George Washington had two unsuccessful nominations.
Lone Wacko...
Sarah Palin's belonging to a fruitcake Alaska Secessionist Party did not particularly damage her politically, so it's hard to see your point. Besides, the link you provided seemed to have been written by someone whose bipolar meds ran out some time ago. A tad on the screechy side, doncha think?
The other day at an LA fundraiser (btw the Dems are broke and the GOP is flush), Obama exhorted the crowd that Sotomayor must be confirmed, he wants her to "march up those marble steps and START providin' some justice". Typical Obama.
Until this would-be Messiah appeared on the scene, there was no justice in America, it all begins with him. Just as he went to Europe and apologized for all that came before him and failed to defend the greatness of the pre-Obama America, so it is with Sotomayor. Until she gets to the Court we are all wallowing in injustice. He must have learned that from 20 years with his good buddy, Reverend Wright.
There is a dangerous ego-centrism about Obama and he is on the verge of taking our country into a very dark and not very prosperous time. When that happens, you had better pray that the GOP is strong and ready and helps us take our democracy back!
petekent01 (on twitter)
Complete no-win situation for the GOP. All they can hope to do is put up enough token resistance to placate their knuckle-dragger base. If they somehow kill the Sotomayor nomination they alienate all the Latino voters. And then Obama nominates Kagen or Woods, and they sail on through. In this case discretion is the better oart of valor.
Pragmatus:
1. The records and a correction from an AIP official show that you're lying about Palin (blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html).
2. I wrote the link I posted above, and if you find even a single thing I need to issue a correction over, I'll rush to do it. I don't think you'll have any luck with that, but feel free to knock yourself out.
3. Please don't waste others' time.
Josh posted that Justice Ginsburg was (is?) "an ideologically extreme nominee from any perspective." And I'm here to tell you that's nonsense. From my perspective, she hasn't been anywhere near as liberal as what used to be the liberal wing of the Court when Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, and William O. Douglas were on the Court. And I didn't consider any of those Justices "ideological extremists," either, merely great liberal judges. By contrast, I consider Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas to be ideological extremists on most issues. Why is it you would think that a liberal would agree with you that a merely relatively liberal Justice is an "ideological extremist," when you obviously wouldn't agree with me that the right-wing core of today's Court are largely dangerously statist, anti-civil libertarian radical-right extremists? Express your opinion, but don't arrogantly claim to speak for "any perspective."
wv: suckhe, which is what a lot of Supreme Court decisions do
I hate to say it, but all you liberals (and I am liberal myself) are playing politics. Sotomayor is a terrible nominee! I'm so sick of hearing about empathy, her background in the Bronx, and her personal life story in general. Seriously, what's her judicial philosophy? She doesn't appear to have one, yet everyone is jumping behind her, then accusing the conservatives of just playing politics. Sotomayor will go down in history as a mediocre SCOTUS justice, just as she's currently known - in legal circles - as a mediocre Circuit judge.
Obama should have nominated Kathleen Sullivan; its not the gay thing would affect anything, as Souter would probably have supported gay marriage anyway.
lonewacko,
The NCLR is not the crazy left wing organisation you would like to paint it as. Saying it is is sort of like saying the NAACP is a crazy left wing nutjob grouping.
I think the right are going to have to try harder to smear Sotomayor if they want to make sure Judge Sotomayor doesn't get to SCOTUS. In the meantime they are just coming off as far from lone wackos.
Pragmatus,
All you have to do to see the idiocy of 'lonewacko' is to look at the information in the upper left corner of the page the nutwinger linked to. It states:
Independent, in-depth coverage of immigration, politics, and media bias since 2002.Then go to the home page of the site, and all you need to do is read the headlines of the various right-wing nuttery 'articles' written on that page. You'll see that the meaning of 'independent' means a thought process that is independent of logic, and independent of being in touch with reality.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
it's disappointing to see that the public wasn't better able to distinguish Roberts, who objectively speaking was a strong nominee, from Miers, who, um, wasn't.
Nate, I could distinguish them clearly, and yes Roberts was qualified and Miers was not. However if you asked me during Roberts' confirmation hearing whether I thought he was an excellent, good, fair, or poor choice - I would have said "poor." Not because I can't make distinctions, but because he was a political pick chosen precisely for his "social conservatism" and diametrically opposed to most of what I hold dear. The question was not "do you think he is qualified," it was just "do you think he is a good choice." I didn't.
And I can't blame Roberts supporters for thinking Sotomayer is a poor choice. Of course they do. But she's just as qualified as Roberts was. During the Roberts confirmation process we heard a lot of republicans say that the president deserved substantial deference in his appointment, and Democrats mostly fell in line. Not because they thought he was a good choice, but because - from a progressive perspective - he was a marvelously qualified poor choice.
@PeteKent,
A word from a linguist about the comment concerning how Obama told Sotomayor to "march up those marble steps and START providin' some justice"...
You are correct to point out that the verb "start" presupposes that the action in question has not been going on previously. If you say "He started smoking," you would be saying nonsense if he had already been smoking.
However, you fail to take into account the implicit time interval over which the presupposition holds. That is, when you say "start X," you don't always mean that X has never happened in the history of the universe. Usually, you're only talking about a short amount of time, or even the moment you're talking. For instance, if you told someone to "start walking," you obviously don't presuppose that they have never taken a step in their life... just that they were still at the time.
To take an example similar to what Obama said, consider this baseball analysis: "The team really needs Adrian Beltre (.238, 5 HR, 24 RBI) to wake up and start knocking in runs for the middle of that lineup." As Beltre's 24 RBI shows, he had obviously knocked in runs before. At the time, though, he had been in a slump, and the analyst's use of start only presupposes that he wasn't at the time.
Similarly, Obama presupposes that Sotomayor is not currently dispensing justice at the Supreme Court, which she obviously isn't since she hasn't been confirmed yet.
Interesting article and informative blog.Adults In London
Sounds like someone confused NCLR with groups like MEChA, La Voz de Aztlan, and Nation of Aztlan.
"Seriously, what's her judicial philosophy? She doesn't appear to have one"
Matthew, maybe she doesn't appear to have one because you haven't done any research into what her philosophy is? Or because the media has only been concerned with stupid stuff? At least on that point we agree. But that doesn't mean she doesn't have a judicial philosophy.
i second y2roby, would be nice if the news media stopped repeating how hispanic she is and how she grew up in the bronx and actually discussed her legal record. My personal opinion is that she seems very down to earth, a solid justice but not an excellent one. Kagan would probably still have been a better choice. Her comment regarding how "policy is made" in the court only reflects realism .. anybody who believes that law is totally objective (especially constitutional law) or that interstate commerce is the same today as it was 300 years ago is simply being ignorant.
Ironically many of her decisions actually seem to take the law quite literally .. which flies in the face of the activist criticism. Few of her decisions are out of the mainstream .. but obama could have picked a safer choice from a liberal perspective (mixed record on criminal justice issues, no record on abortion and so on).
The escort industry in Internet is growing rapidly for all ages of men and women some cases, These are not allowed in India but In some countries like UK, US, Aus, Ire and more are allowed these type of services.
London Escorts
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment