No One Could Have Predicted.... Sonia Sotomayor Edition

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun May 31, 2009 at 11:30


Behold, The GOP Gender Gap!

From DKos:

Behold, The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary Gender Gap!

Politico:

Fewer than 20 percent of federal appellate judges are female, but of the appellate judges called a "bully" or accused of similar words in the AFJ (outburst, intemperate, temperamental, discourteous, or unpleasant), 40 percent (4 of 10) were women. In sum, female judges are twice as likely as male judges to draw criticism for outspokenness and aggression. (It is theoretically possible, of course, that twice as many female judges as male judges actually are outspoken and aggressive, but there is little reason to think that, and my anecdotal experience is to the contrary - that male judges are more likely to be aggressive, whether in proper or improper ways.)
Paul Rosenberg :: No One Could Have Predicted.... Sonia Sotomayor Edition
Behold, The New York Times Gender Gap!

Media Matters:

We noted yesterday that it's hard to believe that if judge Sonia Sotomayor were a man that the New York Times, just three days after the nomination was announced, would run a lengthy news piece that revolved solely around the fact that Sotomayor had a reputation of being pushy on the bench. (That's a trait that's often celebrated when displayed by male judges.)

We noted that the Times, at least according to Nexis, never wrote an article about legal hot head Antonin Scalia's temperament during his nomination process. In fact, the Times never wrote a single sentence about how Scalia famously pushed people around from the bench.

Behold, The National Review Gender Gap!

Think Progress:

Department of Analogies

Looking over this table, I can certainly see why Sonia Sotomayor might remind you of someone nominated for the Supreme Court by George W. Bush:

analogies

And then there's Ramesh Ponnuru who dubs her Obama's Miers. Because, I guess, the qualifications Sotomayor holds only count as qualifications if you're a white dude.



But she's the one who's biased, right?  

Not only that... she's got cooties!  Anonymous sources within 500 miles of her confirm.

Yeah, that's the ticket!


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Stats (4.00 / 2)
It seems that there remains a core group of people who are increasingly out of touch with reality. Sort of like the  Ralians or the flat-earther's.

What the statistics don't tell us is how big the pool of D/R men/women are, although this can be inferred from other sources. However it can give a misleading impression when the data is presented without context.

Suppose we sample 100 people 90 are D and 10 are R. 90% of the D say x while 100% of the R say not-x. Which is more telling, 81 out of 100 believe x or 100% of the R believe not-x?

I'm not even sure that polls that don't weight the results in some way can even been seen as impartial anymore. It makes it seem as if opposition to Sotomayer is higher than it really is. Of course polling organizations with a (secret) agenda has been the norm for a century.

The media is complicit since it keeps giving this fringe more notice than they warrant. I'm not sure what their aim is. I understand Fox and O'Reilly, they are just psychotic, but at some point in the future the Dem/Independent majority may get tired of being manipulated and just stop listening. Once you have lost your audience you never it get it back. One would think the experience with the print media would have taught them this lesson, apparently not.


Policies not Politics


A Separate Reality, Indeed! (0.00 / 0)
It seems that there remains a core group of people who are increasingly out of touch with reality. Sort of like the  Ralians or the flat-earther's.

Generally speaking, agreement on political issues between liberals and conservatives runs anywhere from 2/3 to 4/5 or higher.  This is counting both liberals who take the "conservative" position and conservatives who take the "liberal" position.   Even on divisive issues like abortion or gay rights, levels of agreement tend to be around 2/3.  I've done most of my investigations in this area using GSS data, and I haven't looked as closely at party differences, or at more transient questions.

Still, I find it quite remarkable that the level of agreement on Sotomayer is just 39% between Rep and Dem men and 49% between Rep and Dem women in the Gallup poll, and 23% and 35% in the Quinnipiac poll.  So much for reducing polarization.  No can do when the GOP simply insists on getting more and more extreme.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
I want to say that this is due to the fact that women are probably MUCH more likely to give Sotomayor the benefit of the doubt (0.00 / 0)
I want to say that this is due to the fact that women are probably MUCH more likely to give Sotomayor the benefit of the doubt, while republican men (i.e. white men) are automatically going to downplay her qualifications with no regard to how off putting that is to women. I mean, I don't know what it's like to be a woman but I do know what it's like to be a minority and have people automatically assume your experience/accomplishments aren't on par with your job level.

. (0.00 / 0)
Forgot to finish my thought.

The only question is how long this split lasts. If I'm right and it's just benefit of the doubt then that could be fleeting, but if they are disgusted with the way Sotomayor is being treated then hopefully that's something more permanent.


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox