Posted on Mar 10, 2016
3
3
0
Assuming that the poll is accurate, the situation is worse than "don't want" because the poll question was "Do you trust ...".
[ASIDE - Wording the poll question as "Do you trust ..." could have skewed the results of the poll as "trust" is a semantically loaded term.]
[ASIDE - Wording the poll question as "Do you trust ..." could have skewed the results of the poll as "trust" is a semantically loaded term.]
Americans Don’t Want GOP Frontrunners Making Court Appointment
Posted from publicpolicypolling.com
Supreme Court
Election 2016
Republicans
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 8
2
2
0
COL Ted Mc Polls are always skewed to the view of the creator because he/she determines how the questions are asked.
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT (Join to see) - Captain; They CAN be. But you can also take steps to minimize that distortion by ensuring that the actual wording of the question is as neutral as possible (and rotating the order in which the options are presented).
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
COL Ted Mc if either of the front runners win the election, I don't want either one choosing the next SCOTUS justice. I think putting a photo lineup in front of a troop of poop flinging monkeys, and choosing the cleanest one after a day would be a safer idea for the nation. Either Trump or Clinton is going to choose someone who is going to be good for their big business friends, and bad for us. Hillary will choose someone who will be big government fanboy or fangirl as the case may be. Trump is going to choose someone who fits with his immigration machinations. either way we the people lose.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO3 Steven Sherrill - PO; Since there is no requirement that a Justice of the Supreme Court have any legal training whatsoever, and since the job pays well and is pretty damn secure, why not adopt the policy that Canada's Rhinoceros Party advocated for filling Canadian Senate seats (which are also well paid and are pretty damn secure [admittedly they do have "term limits" {you can only be appointed once and you have to retire when you are 75}]) - sell lottery tickets.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
COL Ted Mc - That is a damned scary thought. Really scary is that I was just thinking if they put like a 50 ticket limit on each person it may not be a bad idea.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO3 Steven Sherrill - PO; I don't want to stifle those with money, so I can't agree to a ticket limit.
HOWEVER, I can agree with a sliding scale for tickets so that you pay $1 for the first ticket, $2 for the second ticket, $3 for the third ticket, .... , $1,000,000 for the millionth ticket, and so forth. To be truly fair, EVERYONE will be issued one ticket at no charge.
HOWEVER, I can agree with a sliding scale for tickets so that you pay $1 for the first ticket, $2 for the second ticket, $3 for the third ticket, .... , $1,000,000 for the millionth ticket, and so forth. To be truly fair, EVERYONE will be issued one ticket at no charge.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
COL Ted Mc - Here is where we agree to disagree. I think that even the sliding scale still makes it a rich person's game. Imagine Donald Trump and Michael Bloomberg getting into it over the seat. Then say you are also interested in the seat. You could still win the seat with the tickets you can afford, but with the odds being based on the number of tickets sold, the ultra rich could rig the lottery by simply overbuying. Every ticket has the same odds of winning, but the number of entries gives the rich person the better chance of overcoming the odds.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Rasmussen Report. Since the Democrats won't be voting for Republican candidates, so what?
While 81% of voters say the selection of a new U.S. Supreme Court justice is important to their vote in November, nearly half of Republicans say they’d be more likely to vote for a senator who refuses to consider an Obama nominee. Half of Democrats would be less likely to vote for that candidate. In short, the battle over the Scalia vacancy appears to be a draw for now.
While 81% of voters say the selection of a new U.S. Supreme Court justice is important to their vote in November, nearly half of Republicans say they’d be more likely to vote for a senator who refuses to consider an Obama nominee. Half of Democrats would be less likely to vote for that candidate. In short, the battle over the Scalia vacancy appears to be a draw for now.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
MCPO Roger Collins - Master Chief; Actually it isn't a Rasmussen poll.
You might find the way that the "Independents" (whatever that means) lined up interesting. Just go to the bottom of the linked page, click on the "See full results here" sub-link and then scroll down to the tables.
BTW, I agree that the Republicans aren't more likely to vote for a Democrat over this issue (staying home and not voting is something else again) but the "Independents" might make a difference.
You might find the way that the "Independents" (whatever that means) lined up interesting. Just go to the bottom of the linked page, click on the "See full results here" sub-link and then scroll down to the tables.
BTW, I agree that the Republicans aren't more likely to vote for a Democrat over this issue (staying home and not voting is something else again) but the "Independents" might make a difference.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google