Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Sotomayor (ABC/Post 6/18-21)


ABC News / Washington Post
6/18-21/09; 1,001 adults, 3% margin of error
Mode: Live Telephone Interviews

(ABC story, results, Post results)

National

Do you think the U.S. Senate should or should not confirm Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court?
62% Should 25% Should not

 

Comments
Charles Craig:

Based on her own admissions of her view of how she would administrate the LAW it would not be "the constitution" guiding her entire process to reach a decision on the outcome. The rule of law, not your ethnic background or experiences drive your decision in the Supreme Court!

____________________

jmc:

Obviously, Judge Sotomayor has always made use of her legal expertise, her personal background, and the law as bases for her decisions. Every judge does.

In fact and in reality, every person's decisions about anything are affected by his or her background. Roberts', Scalia's, Alito's, and Thomas's right wing Federalist Society ideologies have affected every decision they've made while on the court as have Justice Kennedy's Catholic upbringing and Justice Ginsburg's Jewish background. It would be grossly unethical, totally unrealistic, and highly inequitable for us to expect anything less from Justice Sotomayor.

Carping and whining about more windmill issues, as the discredited right wing has been doing in recent weeks and months, are contributing nothing to the national discussions except revealing how intellectually inadequate most of them are.

Any less intelligence from them would require that we water them once a week. Fertilizer they produce enough of on their own

____________________

jmc, That's not entirely true as Scalia is a strict interpreter of the Constitution. And really, that's all any of them are supposed to do. The usual argument is "But everyone does it so why shouldn't she do it?" That's like saying but everyone steals so why shouldn't I steal?"

Most of them shouldn't be there as far as I'm concerned and I really wonder if most of them have even read the Constitution.

I do not think they should confirm Sotomayer to the Supreme Court. She's a racist and that's apparent in her famous statement and in her support of Affirmative Action which is racist legislation.

____________________

bas:

jmc
Liberals always seek to take out the opponent by personal attack rather than a legitimate argument.

I would like a Supreme Court nominee who at least attempts to put the Constitution first,
and strives for perfection in that. Her prior statements do indicate that Sotomeyer is a racist.
I liked what Thomas Sowell had to say about her comments. 'Racism has never done this country any good, and it needs to be fought against, not put under new management for different groups.'

____________________

bas:

jmc
Liberals always seek to take out the opponent by personal attack rather than a legitimate argument.

I would like a Supreme Court nominee who at least attempts to put the Constitution first,
and strives for perfection in that. Her prior statements do indicate that Sotomeyer is a racist.
I liked what Thomas Sowell had to say about her comments. 'Racism has never done this country any good, and it needs to be fought against, not put under new management for different groups.'

____________________

kat:

She has already been questioned just 10 years ago, so they only have to look at the last 10 years.
She was OK'ed by a Republican President and has done a superb job, this should be an easy one for everyone.
She is not an activist she is a safe bet for both sides.

____________________

IanJayGermaine:

The idea that Judge Sotomayor was questioned 10 years ago is a reason to start there, but not a reason topreclude delving deeper.

However in the last 10 years her ruling have been reversed the great majority of the time. That alone bring suspect her judgement even with this court. Although a 5 to 4 decision was not an overwhelming decision on the recent ruling, the decenting view was given rather weakly and on no constitutional grounds. Justice Ginsburg has had better thought out and reasoned arguments.

____________________

ABC News / Washington Post
6/18-21/09; 1,001 adults, 3% margin of error
Mode: Live Telephone Interviews.

I don't believe it. I'm not buying it. If 62% say that she should be appointed as Supreme Court judge I wouldn't doubt the polls were rigged by calling, say, mostly registered Democrats and asking them what they think.

____________________

teaseaf:

I would also strongly question how the poll was conducted. Statistics are only as credible as the person(s) that put in or manufacture the statistics.

____________________

Emil T:

The argument that emotions influence judges in their opinions is partially true. Take the 9th appeals court in San Francisco, they have a liberal agenda. The US Supreme Court reverses quite a few of their rulings. That's why the Supreme Court has to be free of personal feelings, in order to maintain the purity of the Constitution. Sotomayer has made it obvious that she rules based on emotions and race. Her decision regarding the firemen was an obvious example of her letting her personal feelings influence her ruling in that case. She made statements confirming her partiality in that decision. Obama reinforces her bias, stating he wants judges that rely on emotions rather than pure interpretation of Constitutional law.
Supreme Court Judges take great pains to leave personal feelings out of their opinions. People may disagree with some of their decisions, but I think every one of them is so devoted to the Constitution, their opinions are purely based on that document as they interpret it. Sotomayor, in her decisions and her statements has displayed that she hasn't the capacity to rule equally, and equality is the absence of racism.

____________________

Emil T:

The argument that emotions influence judges in their opinions is partially true. Take the 9th appeals court in San Francisco, they have a liberal agenda. The US Supreme Court reverses quite a few of their rulings. That's why the Supreme Court has to be free of personal feelings, in order to maintain the purity of the Constitution. Sotomayer has made it obvious that she rules based on emotions and race. Her decision regarding the firemen was an obvious example of her letting her personal feelings influence her ruling in that case. She made statements confirming her partiality in that decision. Obama reinforces her bias, stating he wants judges that rely on emotions rather than pure interpretation of Constitutional law.
Supreme Court Judges take great pains to leave personal feelings out of their opinions. People may disagree with some of their decisions, but I think every one of them is so devoted to the Constitution, their opinions are purely based on that document as they interpret it. Sotomayor, in her decisions and her statements has displayed that she hasn't the capacity to rule equally, and equality is the absence of racism.

____________________

Bob Nicholson:

Texas Sen. John Cornyn, a Judiciary Committee member, said her
Past decisions may indicate she believes the right to bear arms applies
Only to the federal government. "I would say for any law student –
Much less a federal judge of 18 years – to take that kind of cramped
And restrictive view of a basic civil liberty in our Bill of Rights
Is troubling indeed," he said.

She's a racist and that's apparent in her infamous
Statement wherein she opined that a "wise Latina woman"
Would reach better conclusions than a white man" and her
Support of Affirmative Action Which is racist legislation.

In the last 10 years her ruling have been reversed
The great majority of the time. That alone makes
Her judgement suspect. The Supreme Court recent ruling
Overturning an extremely racist decision by Sotomayor's Appeals
Court was very telling as to her proclivity for racist decisions.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the weak dissenting opinion Brilliant legal
Analysts are saying this decision when you get down to it is actually
9-zip, not 5-4 when you look at some of the things that Ginsburg wrote
About the mistakes and not even hearing the case, not even taking
the constitutional questions. Justice Ginsburg has Had much better
Reasoned arguments than the one she presented in her dissenting opinion.


____________________

Bob Nicholson:

Texas Sen. John Cornyn, a Judiciary Committee member, said her
Past decisions may indicate she believes the right to bear arms applies
Only to the federal government. "I would say for any law student –
Much less a federal judge of 18 years – to take that kind of cramped
And restrictive view of a basic civil liberty in our Bill of Rights
Is troubling indeed," he said.

She's a racist and that's apparent in her infamous
Statement wherein she opined that a "wise Latina woman"
Would reach better conclusions than a white man" and her
Support of Affirmative Action Which is racist legislation.

In the last 10 years her ruling have been reversed
The great majority of the time. That alone makes
Her judgement suspect. The Supreme Court recent ruling
Overturning an extremely racist decision by Sotomayor's Appeals
Court was very telling as to her proclivity for racist decisions.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the weak dissenting opinion Brilliant legal
Analysts are saying this decision when you get down to it is actually
9-zip, not 5-4 when you look at some of the things that Ginsburg wrote
About the mistakes and not even hearing the case, not even taking
the constitutional questions. Justice Ginsburg has Had much better
Reasoned arguments than the one she presented in her dissenting opinion.


____________________

BEE:

Funny, the poll in the email I received about this said 88% do not want her approved. Seems they are making up poll numbers to slant the way they want the issue to go.

____________________

Stillow:

Elections have consequences. There was no doubt Obama would nominate a liberal justice. She clearly has very questionable decision making processes...and her record of being overturned is not a good one. She clearly has racist tendancies based on her own comments and rulings. But we knew Obama would nominate a liberal and he won with 52.9 percent of the vote....The Senate should confirm her nomination. As one of the most conservative people who post on this site, I support her appointment to the court because the presidents earns that right when he wins an election. I think she will probably be a poor justice and rule in ways I find seriously flawed such as Ginsburg for example. But again, Obama earned the right to pick a justice "he" sees fit....if the people do not like what he does in areas like this, he will be voted out in 2012.

____________________

lochniall:

This poll is pretty amazing considering the one I just took online.

The results of that poll were: Yes:12.7%, No: 87.3%, Vote count: 1,055.

This poll is sent out by Congress.Org to persons registered for updates on Congressional voting.


____________________

ckraus111:

I think ABC blew it when they don't allow other opinions. Doing this leaves ABC open to airing nothing but progaganda.

I don't agree with everything Obama or the political parties are saying and doing.

I research and then use common sense and logical free thinking to make a decision.

Note: I am NOT - Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Red or Green - I'm INDEPENDENT - A Born Again American.

____________________

kanghi416:

As a Spiritual Progressive, I have concerns with Judge Sotomayor and her record. She shows all the signs of an old paradigm liberal who will stick to "The Agenda" no matter what the reality is. I would prefer to hear her explanations for her past statements before deciding how I sand.

____________________

kanghi416:

As a Spiritual Progressive, I cannot right now fully support Judge Sotomayor's nomination. I would need to hear what she has to say about some former statements she has made. Only after I hear more of her thoughts can I make a definitive statement. I am concerned with statements about using ethnicity to decide cases and with some past decisions.

____________________

sjt22:

@BEE and Lochinal

You're trying to discredit a scientific poll by quoting a very obviously un-scientific poll?

@ The wolf

Again, scientific poll. The numbers are right there for you to look at. Just click on the link.

@In Jay

Reversed the great majority of the time? She's heard 3000 cases while on the appeals court. Only 5 were even heard by the Supreme Court. 2 were upheld, 3 were reversed. These are better than average numbers for an appeals court judge. 1 out of 1000 decisions were reversed, and that's with a conservative Supreme Court the whole time. That's your definition of "a great majority of the time"?

____________________

JmHMM163:

I am getting less shocked by results like this. At 68 I would never have expected that we in the United States would ever see a time when we have; after hours votes, speed readers, flagrant snubs of the people, open degridation of the oath or office by the elected, control of the media, and lack of basic moral principals. This seems to be just one more misdirection. We have a just overturned case being ignored and a record of 60% over turned history being completely ignored. Over and over again we see nothing but smoke screen. Without "sellective poling" I would, based on all public opinion I have heard the 12.7% Should with 87.3% Should not is the more accurate.

____________________

sjt22:

@ JmHMM163

Again, that "record of 60%" overturn is just wrong. She has heard 3000 cases on the appeals court. Of all those cases 5 were selected for review by the Court. 3 were overturned, 2 were upheld. So 1 out of 1000 cases she heard were overturned. That's not 60%, that's .001%.

As for selective polling, that's also wrong. This is a scientific poll. Those other polls are not. Its like trying to tell the temperature with two thermometers. One is by itself while the other is taped to a working furnace. Which one do you think is more reliable?

Amazing that after all this time there are still people on Pollster who don't understand basic polling procedure.

____________________

Patriot:

Just exactly WHAT is a " scientific " poll? Any thing less than a poll of the whole population is not accurate in my view, however impractical that might be. No president has the "right" to install anyone, That's why our elected representative have to confirm them..Not that they represent us very well, since many polls have been ignored in the past. Having said that, our reps in Washington had better start listening, because the American people are becoming increasingly angry with Washington's shenanigans. If my instincts are correct, the near future (maybe a year) ain't gonna be pretty! Think about it, folks... When the Dollar collapse, EVERYBODY'S ox gets gored, even the wealthy.......

____________________

LoneWolf57:

How is polling 1,001 people out of over 300 million over a land line that most people will not even answer if they don't recognize the number calling them a scientific poll? Polls like statistics can be manipulated to say anything that the poller wants it to say. I'd trust an unscientific internet poll over a so called scientific poll any day of the week because most people have internet access and they get to choose to answer a poll not the ones conducting a poll. Don't believe everything you read or hear. Question it, reseach it, make up your own mind!

____________________

sjt22:

A scientific poll is one which corresponds to sound, established polling practices. These practices have been developed and refined for over 100 years and continue to be improved upon every year.

This includes random sampling of possible respondents, checks to make sure that all possible subgroups are represented, care taken in question wording and ordering, robustness controls to ensure that those who actually answer do not represent a skewed sample of the population. When all these steps are followed you can actually get accurate polling data despite what seems like an impossibly small sample size.

All of the top pollsters, no matter what their political affiliation or operating purpose, take great pains to follow these steps in order to ensure quality and accuracy in their polls.

As for you comment about trusting internet polls because people can opt to take them or not, thats exactly why internet polls are NOT worth the megabytes they are stored on. The natural result of that set up is a heavily skewed setup of people who feel especially strongly about the issue, typically leaning to one way.

This is a crappy analogy, but suppose you were an alien and you wanted to find out if the Yankees or Red Sox were more popular among all Americans. You could either ask 1000 random people from the entire United States, or ask 10000 people from Boston. Which technique would you think gives a more accurate reading of the feelings of the whole country?

Frankly I'm surprised that people who comment on Pollster.com, which prides itself on looking at scientific polls and discussing quality polling techniques, would be so hostile to the standard practices of the polling business.

____________________

sjt22:

Seriously, I'm stumped. Where did all you people come from? Were you not here during the campaign last year, where there were 5+ new polls a day and constant discussion over their merits and techniques? Do you not realize that this whole size, and every site it links to, are based on learning and perfecting the practices of scientific polling? Do you not understand that the thousands of polls posted on this site are all scientific, and if they weren't they wouldn't be here?

Finally, why are there a ton of comments for this little poll and nothing for any others? Even if this poll was wrong, which its not, what does it matter? Barring death or something else crazy, she's gonna get confirmed, polls or no polls. There are actual interesting polls on upcoming races and policy battles being posted all the time.

____________________

Patriot:

If Sotomayor gets approved, then the senate is a collection of fools. Upsetting a relative balance in SCOTUS with a dyed in the wool liberal racist like that will be the end of the constitution and bill of rights. Not "right-wing", just common sense! I could go on at length, but it's been said many times already,si I won't bother..

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR