I'm reading "Recent Supreme Court rulings alienate the left but are hardly unpopular/Polls suggest the new decisions aren’t out of step with the American public, despite Democrats’ attempts to lump them in with last year’s loss of abortion rights" by Aaron Blake (WaPo).
I wonder how much more the polls would tip conservative if mainstream media didn't slant heavily against the "conservative bloc." Even this quote I put at the top of this post is heavily slanted — "not as obviously unpopular... could even be understood...." You've got almost 2/3 of Americans agreeing on affirmative action, and that's in the face of news reports that act as though the Court endorsing racism and homophobia.
पोस्ट्स
३६ टिप्पण्या:
Last I heard before Dobbs, the public was not in favor of abortion. Lots of noise but not much heat. Schumer almost had a heart attack but he's too old anyway.
Wow, I hadn't realized they ended Americans' right to abortion, I thought it just did away with the federal constitutional issue. That's great news!
pro tip: more people disapprove of abortion, than approve of Biden
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
You've got almost 2/3 of Americans agreeing on affirmative action, and that's in the face of news reports that act as though the Court endorsing racism and homophobia.
Well... without having read the whole article, I obviously don't know what the writer's take was on it, but it seems possible to me that part of the point was to present at least half of Americans as racist and homophobic.
Joe Biden is not popular. His approval ratings are in the toilet.
Biden is losing to the Supreme Court.
Soon Biden will roll over and die.
It is interesting that leftists fail to acknowledge the inherent & inalienable nature if individual rights. ROE did not grant a right, it acknowledged the existence of privacy rights and sought to halt an infringement upon those rights, unfortunately legislating from the bench rather than following dictates of our Constitution. But leftists see rights as grants from government, and treat rights as if there is no vesting in an individual person for a right. So when Dobbs reversed Roe and rightfully remanded abortion law to state legislatures, it was a court reversing a grant of rights, no different from any other privilege given or removed by authority.
How much easier it is to see rights as an individual's to exercise, and only supported or infringed by the power of the state.
Popular? Is that how it should work? If it is 'popular' it is right and not popular it is wrong?
I thought that was called 'tyranny of the majority'? We vote and if 51% says 'you die'... then you die.
And you see that is why we have a Bill of Rights.. to stop this 'popular' being used to KILL PEOPLE.
And speaking of slanted coverage, Dobbs didn't end the right to an abortion.
---I'm reading... (WaPo).
When you keep going to the poisoned well, there's a good chance you will be poisoned.
The question in the Colorado case is poorly phrased. That's not the holding, although in time it may come to be key precedent for such a holding.
The affirmative action result should be no surprise given the recent prop vote in California. Interesting column and chart in NY Times showing how few colleges have competitive enough admissions for affirmative action to be a factor, and how many more Asians, relatively, attend colleges with competitive admissions than any other group. Numbers for Whites, Blacks and Latinos comparable. So it really appears to be an issue for Asians.
Well, I am personally against abortion....but I favor neither a Constitutional Amendment nor a Federal law forbidding it....because as I have maintained all along, it is NOT a Federal issue, but one best left to the individual states.....even if that means at least 15 states will allow legal abortions up to birth. Put it back to the state level where it belongs. As far as affirmative action, it seems to me to be racism, pure and simple. And it is bad for the country, including those it purports to help. As for forcing people to bake cakes or create websites for same-sex couples, I do not see how either is a compelling interest that would override freedom of religion. Glad to see the USSC getting back out of creating rights that do not exist, and no longer violating the clear wording of the actual Constitution.
"if it conflicts with their LGBTQ beliefs". The correct description probably shouldn't include "LGBTQ", and I expect then it would have been even more popular.
How about, we don’t care if they’re popular ?
This isn’t the stage play “Wicked” and it’s not proposed congressional legislation.
Popularity has ZERO to do with it.
How about the Constitution and how it’s understood and interpreted by anyone who’s not a flaming lefty political hack (or Sonya Sotomayor, but I repeat myself).
Calling popular decisions “not as obviously unpopular” is about as close to the truth as the Washington Post ever gets.
Not unexpected, is it? According to the Washington Strap-On, 41% is a Constitution-annulling mandate for Resident Biden, whereas anything connected to the GOP must have a 99% approval to be treated as Not Entirely Hitleresque.
I bet if they phrased the question to ask if people were in favor of transferring student debt to taxpayers instead of calling it "forgiveness", a lot more people would be against it.
The ignorance the media has about what Americans think knows no limits.
And how much of the support/opposition is based on an attempt to understand the constitutional arguments as opposed to a desire to have the court legislate according to their policy preferences?
This is a little off topic, but is it just me or are those some remarkably unflattering portraits of the justices? Not even just the conservatives -- I actually think the portrait of Jackson is the worst. It's probably traced from some photo or other but, ah, I don't think her lips or chin are quite that big.
Affirmative action in college admissions is unpopular, and if the question uses"racial preferences" or "race-conscious admissions," it is very, very unpopular with almost all Americans. One might say "obviously unpopular."
Opinion on abortion varies depending on the phrasing of the question. Most people are not pro- or anti-abortion absolutists.
Perhaps the MSM is preparing its loyal readers for the grim reality that it has lost all faith in the American people, and regrettably it has to demand the government disband the current populace and elect a new one?
Abortion wasn't ended, and the decision was popular. Other than that, about normal on the reporting. Propaganda sells, when you're Cruelly Neutral and want to avoid the consequences of your pseudo-ambivalence.
Affirmative action in college admissions is unpopular, and if the question uses"racial preferences" or "race-conscious admissions," it is very, very unpopular with almost all Americans. One might say "obviously unpopular."
Opinion on abortion varies depending on the phrasing of the question. Most people are not pro- or anti-abortion absolutists.
Can't end something that doesn't exist and never did.
As the insanity of Roe fades and a saner approach is tried, the obvious popularity of Roe will fade into the dustbin of history.
Just imagine the popular support if the decisions were objectively described in the media. Instead, we are told Supreme Court outlawed abortion - with its eyes next on birth control - and reinstated Jim Crow in college admissions.
So here we have an interesting and rather clearly-blogged story by Althouse; she's pointing out an instance in which the Washington Post -- the loathed, mainstream-media, Bezos-owned Washington Post -- is expressing a conservative-friendly notion.
But this apparently is not an instance for any sort of commenting reflection on that. It's just another excuse for right-wing Althouse commenters to double down on their hatred of progressive things, however tangential or phony.
Althouse, your blogging is fine. Your commenters have some issues.
Lem the misspeller said...
As the insanity of Roe fades and a saner approach is tried, the obvious popularity of Roe will fade into the dustbin of history.
This could be true. It wouldn't bother me; seeing the supposed popularity of Roe fade into the dustbin of history.
But I suggest that it will only happen as -- in repeated elections over time -- moderate, mainstream, thoughtfully compromised abortion legislation takes effect. And extremist pro-life politicians and their causes are defeated and become outré. Not just in New York and California. But in places like Kansas, and Georgia, and North Carolina, and Arizona.
"Roe v Wade" will end up in the same dustbin of history as "Right to Life."
The leftism baked into mainstream media is pervasive, and colors every news report. I don’t need to consult left-wing blogs or websites to get a leftist perspective on current events; main stream media provides me with that narrative.
It’s always amusing – and gratifying – to see that large swaths of the American public don’t buy into their agitprop.
..."these most recent decisions are not as obviously unpopular with the American public."
Tying themselves into knots trying to figure out how to admit that Progressives do not represent American sensibilities, and haven't, for very long time, but let's make it the Supreme Court's fault, because they're too radical.
Need some feedback? Here - have a Bud Light as we sit down to watch this Pride Parade down Main Street, which is still boarded up from the riots.
I bet if they phrased the question to ask if people were in favor of transferring student debt to taxpayers instead of calling it "forgiveness", a lot more people would be against it.
Just imagine if a journ0list asked the lenders what they think of “debt forgiveness”?
"Last I heard before Dobbs, the public was not in favor of abortion."
Really?
"But leftists see rights as grants from government, and treat rights as if there is no vesting in an individual person for a right."
Well, all the idealistic and fancy talk about "endowment by their creator with certain inalienable rights...etc." notwithstanding, in reality, rights are grants from government. In nations where certain behaviors are prohibited by law--all nations, in other words--rights are just behaviors and certain human social relations that are not prohibited, in essence, grants from each respective government. At any time, any government can prohibit that which was previously permitted, either in short-term emergency circumstances (such as in wartime or other emergency situations) or as "permanent" adjustments. (We are seeing such adjustments in the US with certain recent court decisions, which have led to rapid changes in laws in many states.)
There is no external creator and nothing in human activity that is outside of humanity or the human-generated codes of permitted and prohibited behavior in any given era and under any given government. Behaviors that are permitted or prohibited in any society are always in flux.
"Abortion wasn't ended, and the decision was popular."
Yes, way "popular!" Slightly over one-third of the US approved it.
Few people cared about Dobbs, says Politico:
"A Monmouth poll found that only five percent of voters said abortion was their top concern — nine percent of Democrats and zero percent of Republicans. Meanwhile, a New York Times/Sienna poll found exactly the same thing."
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा