And the media wonders why they laughed when Diane Sawyer said they could be balanced.

[dude1394]

Have you ever seen a more inane headline? So many ways this headline could be written.

2 in 10 call Scotus 'TooLiberal".
7 in 10 call Scotus "Not conservative enough".

Somehow 3 in 10 from possibly 2 in 10 is significant? Sheesh, what a bunch of knuckleheads.

http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/20...vative-enough/

Actually the ABC News headline is, “Three in 10 call SCOTUS ‘Too conservative’”

“Three in 10 Americans say the Supreme Court is “too conservative,” up sharply from two years ago and now substantially more than call it “too liberal.” Just under half say the court is about balanced ideologically in its decisions.

Thirty-one-percent call the court too conservative, compared with 19 percent in July 2005 — a period in which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito have joined the court, replacing William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O’Connor.

Considerably fewer, 18 percent, call the court too liberal. Forty-seven percent say it’s balanced, down from 55 percent in 2005.

Naturally there are sharp ideological differences in these views. Fifty-one percent of liberals see the court as “too conservative,” compared with 36 percent of moderates and 10 percent of conservatives. Indeed a third of conservatives call it too liberal.

Compared with two years ago, views of the court as too conservative are up 16 points among moderates, 10 points among liberals and six points (albeit to a still very small number) among conservatives themselves.

Such attitudes are not unprecedented; about as many as now called the court too conservative in 1991, when Clarence Thomas was nominated to replace retiring Justice Thurgood Marshall.

On two specific recent rulings, the public splits: by 56-40 percent, most disapprove of a ruling restricting how school boards can use race to assign children to schools; but by 55-43 percent, most approve of the Supreme Court’s decision upholding restrictions on so-called partial-birth abortion.”

[Flacolaco]

29 of 30 NBA teams said too few teams won the Championship last year

[Nemesis]

3/10 is only considered "great: in baseball.

[mcsluggo]

Banning of Partial Birth abortions was only supported by a 55-43 majority?

interesting.

I had thought that the vast majority of Americans favored some sort of nuanced, in-between view on abortion-- neither wanting to ban it completely, nor wanting uninhibited abortion on demand in all circumstances.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Banning of Partial Birth abortions was only supported by a 55-43 majority?

interesting.

I had thought that the vast majority of Americans favored some sort of nuanced, in-between view on abortion-- neither wanting to ban it completely, nor wanting uninhibited abortion on demand in all circumstances.

I'm not sure of your point, but, "55-43 percent, most approve of the Supreme Court’s decision upholding restrictions on so-called partial-birth abortion." isn't very clear.
I think there's a sizable chunk that figure anything the Supreme Court decides must be something they can agree with. It's the power of authority. And "upholding restrictions on" doesn't mean banning. Depending on wording in the survey, two people with completely opposite views (ban it/ legalize it) might answer the question the same.

edit: here's the question -

44. The Supreme Court also recently upheld a federal restriction on the
procedure known as partial birth abortion, banning the procedure except
when a woman’s life is at risk. Do you approve or disapprove of this
decision?
Approve Disapprove No opinion

so maybe someone that that wants it banned even when a woman's life is at risk and someone who doesn't like the restriction would both answer "disapprove". I have no idea what percentages those might be. But it's probably a small overlap. I'd also expect it to be more extreme than it is. They even used the term "partial birth" instead of "late term" .

[Usually Lurkin]

The race question holds a hilariously hefty bias, though:

43. As you may know, the Supreme Court recently restricted how local
school boards can use race to assign children to schools. Some argue
(this is a significant setback for efforts to diversify public
schools), others say (race should not be used in school assignments).
On balance, do you approve or disapprove of this decision?
Approve Disapprove No opinion
40 56 4

an argument for one of the options is presented right there in the question!

[mcsluggo]

it presents an argument for BOTH options right there in the question... no?

[Jack.Kerr]

I guess we know what God thinks now, huh.....
Roberts falls on deck at summer home

Jul 30 2007 5:42PM
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) Chief Justice John Roberts is being checked out at a hospital after falling on a dock near his summer home in Maine.

A Supreme Court spokeswoman says she doesn't know how the 52-year-old jurist fell or what injuries he might have suffered.

She says he was taken to the hospital as a precaution.

A local fire chief says Roberts was taken by private boat to the mainland and then transferred to an ambulance. He says the chief justice was conscious and alert when they put him in the rescue vehicle.

Roberts bought the home in Port Clyde, on Hupper Island, last year. It's midway up the coast of Maine, about 90 miles by car from Portland.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

it presents an argument for BOTH options right there in the question... no?

no. one is just a restatement of the position. I'd wager that people on both sides would call it a "significant setback" of some aspect of racial relations (or of something). They just have opposite views of how it would be set back (or what would be set back).

Only one side is reasoned. The question writers stated why race should be used, without saying "race should be used." (I'm inferring from the rest of the sentence. "This" is ambiguous in "this is a significant setback.") They didn't say why race should not be used.

A better, parallel construction would be

Some argue (race should be used in school assignments), others say (race should not be used in school assignments).

or

Some argue (this is a significant setback for efforts to diversify public
schools), others say (this is a significant improvement for efforts for a colorblind society).


Of course, you still don't know how schools are restricted as far as using race unless you've read about it elsewhere. So it's hard to really agree or disagree with the supreme court's decision to restrict.