The Numbers
A Run at the Latest Data from ABC's Poobah of Polling, Gary Langer
Gary Langer is director of polling at ABC News, where he's covered the beat of public opinion for nearly 20 years - conducting and analyzing ABC News polls, evaluating data from other sources and setting the news division's standards for poll reporting. Langer has won two Emmy awards for ABC's reporting of public opinion polls in Iraq, and The Numbers blog was honored this year as winner of the 2008 Iowa Gallup Award for Excellent Journalism Using Polls.
ARCHIVES
SUBJECT INDEX
RECENT POSTS
- In Afghanistan Decision, Risks Abound
- Views on the Terror Trials
- Sarah Palin: Rogue for President?
- Chasing Feathers
- Tomorrow's Elections: An Obama Referendum?
- Schwarzenegger's Nastygram: One in 10 Billion?
- Executive Pay? Cut Away
- Pols, Polls and Pushback
- On Nuclear Iran, Diplomacy and Sanctions are Preferred to Hostilities
- Polling, Politics and Nobels
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Supreme Court Pick: The Public Perspective
May 26, 2009 8:56 AM
While we can count on interest groups across the political spectrum to swarm all over President Obama’s Supreme Court pick, Americans themselves have very little in the way of demands: a smart judge, and not too ideological, if you please.
Polls both by Gallup and CNN earlier this month found very little in the way of insistence that the nominee be a woman, an Hispanic or an African-American; instead the attribute that jumped out was “experience as a judge,” rated as important by 89 percent in CNN’s poll, and as “very” important by two-thirds.
In advance of Obama’s announcement this morning, Democratic sources indicated that he’d announce U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee for the court. If appointed and confirmed she’d be the first Hispanic justice on the high court, and the third woman to serve.
In Gallup’s data single digits called it “essential” that the nominee be a woman (6 percent) or black or Hispanic (1 percent each); as many or more called that a “bad idea” (in the case of an Hispanic nominee, 8 percent). Between a fifth and a quarter called a female, black or Hispanic nominee a “good idea,” if not essential. But most by far, anywhere from two-thirds to three-quarters, said it didn’t matter.
In CNN’s poll, similarly, 39 percent called it “important” that the nominee be a woman; 26 and 22 percent, respectively, said the same of an Hispanic or black nominee. Fewer, though, said it was “very” important – 20, 11 and 9 percent, respectively.
Ideologically, 27 percent said they’d prefer a liberal nominee, 37 percent moderate and 35 percent conservative, roughly resembling the public’s own ideological divide. Relatively few wanted someone at the ideological extremes – either very liberal, 9 percent, or very conservative, 16 percent.
On one hot-button issue, 68 percent in CNN’s poll said they opposed having the court “completely overturn” Roe vs. Wade.
Beyond judicial experience, brains would help: In a Fox poll result, 58 percent said they’d prefer “one of the smartest legal minds available” over “a regular everyday American.”
Ultimately, the public tends to give a president his prerogative in Supreme Court appointments, and that may be the case again: in that Fox poll, six in 10 said they were comfortable with Obama’s making the pick.
May 26, 2009 in Supreme Court | Permalink | User Comments (9)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
as a woman i dont care either way a women,hispanic,black,gay,white,man i only care that they follow the constitution to the letter of the law.but i have to say shes way to liberal for me a moderate for once would have been perfect. i mean lets face it the majority is moderate or a tip conservative we are no way a majority of liberals.
Posted by: natale from mass. | May 26, 2009 9:34:11 AM
Hi, Natale,
As a black man, and minority. I do not care either way, so long as the nominee is qualified. I am sick of this gender/race betting stuff. The country is divided b/c of this.
Posted by: nubiangent08 | May 26, 2009 9:59:24 AM
your completely right maybe someday we will only look at experience.
Posted by: natale from mass. | May 26, 2009 11:52:20 AM
I don't think race or gender matters. It's a good thing if Sotomayor has the kind of background she claims. As long as she demonstrates empathy, understanding and can communicate with those who have and are being oppressed, she is as good as any, if not better than most. Good luck to her, because if she succeeds, it will be good for all.
Posted by: John Gabriel | May 26, 2009 2:25:46 PM
The most important thing to me is for our judges to abide by the constitution. Isn't that their job, after all. The Supreme Court is the judicial branch of the government, not the legislative branch. It's that simple. Neither race nor gender matter to me.
Posted by: lee | May 26, 2009 7:35:54 PM
When are we going to drop this gender/race description and just give names and the qualifications that people bring to an elected office orappointed position ? People are people, not colors of the skin.
We will never become "one world" if this business of giving a gender/race profile to people continues in elections or appointments.
No matter the color of the skin or the gender, if someone has the qualifications to do the job they were chosen to do, that's what matters - nothing else.
My only concern about this woman is that she upheld the decision to ignore the reverse discrimination case brought up by the the firemen who took exams for advancement, did very well and they had those tests thrown out because fireman of another skin color failed to do as well. Tests are given to see who qualifies and who doesn't. Those exams should have never been thrown out. If the situation had been reversed I doubt the tests would have been thrown out - I know they would not have been thrown out. This was a clear cut case of reverse discrimination and she upheld the decision that was made. Is this going to be the way she goes when deliberating all discrimination cases before her ? If so, she should not get the post she's been chosen for.
We have to wait and see what happens -- we have no say in the matter as taxpayers.
Posted by: Elle | May 27, 2009 12:07:58 AM
suprem court nomonees should love the constitution and defend it to the up most i will listen to see if the nomonee is that person .
Posted by: Linda Taylor | May 27, 2009 9:33:21 AM
I just watched a video with Diane Sawyer, James Carville and Ann Coulter discussing the President's pick for Supreme Court. When does joking make something right or acceptable? I had thought that ABC was relatively fair when reporting news. They actually sensored part of what Coulter said, cutting out certain words while allowing Carville's nauseating jokes (with background laughing). Sensorship or controlling what we hear is not funny, just ask people in communist countries. Shame on you ABC.
Posted by: Donna | May 28, 2009 6:47:22 AM
As a Bipartisan constituent, I do not align with Sotomayor on fairly significant political platforms; however, I am most concerned with Sotomayor’s statement which has been made very public recently: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." As a practitioner of law, Sotomayor should arrive at the same conclusions that any legal mind would arrive at, regardless of race, background, and experience when presented with the same evidence, precedents and legal ramifications of rendering decisions.
As a clinician, this would be comparable to arriving at different health diagnoses regardless of categorical symptoms, patient background, etc. All clinicians should arrive at the same, or very similar, diagnostic impressions, regardless of their personal filters, preferred methods, and backgrounds.
Posted by: Lon M. | May 30, 2009 4:09:10 PM
Post a comment
