OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll

Religions > Atheism > OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 3 of 6

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"maff"
Date:	03 Nov 2005 04:57:56 PM
Object:	OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll

Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110301685.html
By Richard Morin and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, November 3, 2005; 5:29 PM
For the first time in his presidency, a majority of Americans question
the integrity of President Bush amid growing concerns about the overall
direction of the country that have left Bush with record negative
ratings on the economy, Iraq and even the war on terrorism, according
to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
On virtually every key measure of presidential character and
performance, the new survey found that Bush has never been less popular
with the American people. Currently 39 percent approve of the job he is
doing as president, while 60 percent now disapprove of his performance
in office -- the highest level of disapproval ever recorded for Bush in
Post-ABC polls.
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Alito (was: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll)	08 Nov 2005 07:15:37 AM

(Arturo Magidin) wrote in
news:dkp1ij$2eqa$1@agate.berkeley.edu:

In article <Xns9707B07F944EBfstone69@213.155.197.138>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

(Arturo Magidin) wrote in
news:dkoesi$28uj$1@agate.berkeley.edu:

[.snip.]

(i) If the regulation poses an "undue burden" on a woman's
ability to obtain an abortion, then it must pass 'heightened
scrutiny' (the mid-level scrutiny of constitutionality).

Called a "compelling state interest" in some other analyses.

I believe "compelling state interest" is what the State must
demonstrate in order to pass "heightened scrutiny" (just as "rational
state interest" is what the State must demonstrate to pass 'regular
scrutiny').

On the positive side, it seems from the dissent that Alito is making
an honest effort to try to understand the "undue burden" standard,
by quoting O'Connor's opinions. He points out that O'Connor had
decided that the mere effect of possibly inhibiting certain
percentage of women from choosing to have an abortion was not
sufficient; that making an abortion somewhat (but not prohibitively
so) more expensive was also not sufficient to constitute an undue
burden.

Several bloggers have commented on just how difficult O'Connor made
that effort.

I certainly agree that the concept was developing; I think O'Connor
herself acknowledged that lower courts may have felt they did not have
enough guidance prior to the Supreme Court Casey decision. As I said,
I think it is a ->very<- positive point that Alito seems to have gone
to considerable lengths to try to understand where a line could be
drawn; it is also true that O'Connor is not a big fan of "bright
line" tests (which other justices, on both sides, seem to prefer).

He then analyses the effect of the regulation on affected women. His
argument seems to me to rest on two points:

(i) The percentage of women who might be severely affected by the
regulation is extremely small;

(ii) These women would be able to avoid the severe effects by
signing the affidavit, even falsely, since a false statement would
be only a third degree misdemeanor, and the burden of proof on the
State would make it extremely difficult to enforce; the quote at
the top of pp. 8 of the dissent reads:

{at bottom of page 7}
"FN5. In considering whether Section 3209 would impose an undue
burden I do not take into account a fact that seems glaringly
apparent, i.e., that Section 3209 would be difficult to enforce and
easy to evade. Section 3209 does not require a woman to provide
any proof of notification other than her own unnotarized statement.
Thus, if a woman claimed that she had orally notified her husband
in private (the mode and place of notification to be expected in
most cases), it would be exceedingly difficult in most cases for the
Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she had
not done so."

See, my problem in reading the opinion is that despite this assurance
that he is not "taking it into account", he seems to rely on the fact
that it is very easy for a woman, truthfully or untruthfully, to
simply sign the declaration stating she has notified her husband or
has one of the statutory exceptions. Part of that "very easy" argument
seems to be that she has little to fear in terms of her assertions to
be challenged. At least, that seems to me to be the undertone of that
particular branch of the argument.

Now, granted: I may very well be misreading this. I would certainly
say that it would be not only a good thing, but a necessary thing, to
ignore the enforceability issue. That's why I am troubled by the
apparent prominent mention of the unenforceability in this dissent,
despite the disclaimer.

But in any case: my concerns stem not so much from the instant
analysis, as I had mentioned, but on the general principles that may
or may not be at issue.

[.snip.]

For example, say we have a regulation that affects speech; we do not
judge whether the regulation constitutes an undue restriction on
speech based on the percentage of people who are severely affected
by the regulation, but rather on the severity with which those who
are affected ->are<- affected. I would expect that, granting for the
sake of argument (as the Circuit Court was required to do, and
apparently did) that the right to abortion was somehow derived from
the constitution, it makes little sense to argue on percentage of
people affected, rather than the degree to which people are
affected. I find that troubling as to point (i).

The discussion of percentages seems to be one part of a two-part
argument, first that the plaintiffs had not established how many women
would be adversely affected, and second, those who were affected would
not be put under an undue burden:

{bottom of page 9}

"Needless to say, the plight of any women, no matter how few, who
may suffer physical abuse or other harm as a result of this
provision is a matter of grave concern. It is apparent that the
Pennsylvania legislature considered this problem and attempted to
prevent Section 3209 from causing adverse effects by adopting the
four exceptions noted above. Whether the legislature�s approach
represents sound public policy is not a question for us to decide.
Our task here is simply to decide whether Section 3209 meets
constitutional standards. The first step in this analysis is to
determine whether Section 3209 has been shown to create an
undue burden under Supreme Court precedent, and for the reasons
just explained it seems clear that an undue burden has not been
established."

Well, yes. That's more or less my troubling sense. Now, granted,
"undue burden" was a term of art that was still evolving. But while
Judge Alito grants that the effects on the women affected by the
statute are a matter of "grave concern," he does seem to put some
weight on the small number of women that would be affected in the
first place. The feeling I get is that he thought whether the burden
was "undue" or not (to savage the English language just a bit)
depended, at least in part, on the number of people affected.

If there was some doubt that the issue was ripe (i.e., whether or not
any women were actually affected), then I would expect the appellate
court to send it back to the lower level for factual inquiry; this did
not happen.

I don't know how much it matters that this is a dissent rather than a
controlling opinion; my thought is that since it is a dissent Alito isn't
in a position to ask for the case to be sent back to the lower court, so
he's simply stating his arguments.
If nobody would be adversely affected, then there could be no undue burden.
Thus the next question is whether those who are affected adversely will
suffer excessively from obeying the law.

As to point (ii), again, it seems to me to be an insidious argument
to say that a law may passes constitutional muster because it cannot
be effectively enforced. Presumably, we should consider the effect
the law would have ->if<- enforced; I find this argument troubling
as well.

He says that he "does not take into account..." the fact that it would
be difficult to enforce. I think he was stating that argument in order
to dismiss it.

I don't remember seeing him dismiss that argument; did I miss it?

Okay: it is possible that I misread or misunderstood the thrust of
Alito's argument. He's, by all accounts, a very smart lawyer, and I'm
not even a lawyer.

I'm relying on that one phrase about not taking that into account in
deciding whether the provision constitutes an undue burden. Perhaps he's
discussing that particular argument at length in order to give guidance on
possible future cases as to the nature of what would or would not pass
muster, in his opinion.

I guess that I'm wondering, given that our take on what the
Constitution does or does not say/do differs, is whether you would
agree or disagree with the principles I think I saw in that opinion,
setting aside for the moment whether or not the principles are
actually there. I guess I am trying to figure out if those would be
acceptable issues from a certain constitutional/political school of
thought to bring up, or if you would also consider unacceptable. As
before, whether we agree or disagree I will not get into a discussion
of whether your take is valid/invalid/good/bad/correct/whatever. I
guess I really want to know some of the principles that may or may not
be behind the points where I tend to disagree with conservatives on
constitutional issues.

The idea that sticks out in my reading of his opinion is this: "Whether the
legislature�s approach represents sound public policy is not a question for
us to decide. Our task here is simply to decide whether Section 3209 meets
constitutional standards."

(For the record: I am certainly not happy about replacing O'Connor
with Alito in general terms, but then, I am likely to be unhappy with
decisions of a more conservative Court; on the other hand, he seems a
conciencious and smart judge, certainly two cuts above Miers. I've
said many times I would rather have another Scalia than another Thomas
on the Court, in terms of being smart, and Alito seems to fit the
bill. I also find it absolutely logical that a president elected on a
conservative platform would attempt to appoint conservative judges and
steer the court in that direction, just as a liberal president might,
within the means at his disposal, try to push in the other direction;
naturally, I also think it is entirely reasonable for a Senator to
vote against a judge on the floor if he doesn't like the philosophy of
that judge. Filibusters, I'll not discuss for now; I think they have
their place, but just where that place is I confess I am not entirely
sure.)

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"A thief is more moral than a congressman;
when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him."
-- Walter Williams
.

User: "Arturo Magidin"
Title: Re: OT: Alito (was: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll)	08 Nov 2005 07:46:01 AM

In article <Xns970854203F250fstone69@213.155.197.138>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

magidin@math.berkeley.edu (Arturo Magidin) wrote in
news:dkp1ij$2eqa$1@agate.berkeley.edu:

[.snip.]

If there was some doubt that the issue was ripe (i.e., whether or not
any women were actually affected), then I would expect the appellate
court to send it back to the lower level for factual inquiry; this did
not happen.

I see it in Supreme Court dissents all the time: the dissenters say
that such-and-such has not been established, the Court should not
reach a conclusion until it has, and the case should have been sent
back to the lower court for fact-finding. Note that Alito does not
state that there is any problem with making an analysis: only that his
analysis of the particular section differs from the analysis of the
majority (in so far as deciding whether or not it constituted an
'undue burden' or not). He seems to be saying that ->if<- there was a
considerable number of women severely affected, then the plaintiffs
should have provided evidence. He ->does<- say that while both sides
argued about the likely good or ill of the regulation, neither side
seems to have provided any evidence in favor or against either such
proposition.
In a way, he seems to be saying that absent evidence that the
legislation severely impacted people, and absent evidence against it,
the presumption is that the legislation does not cause an undue
burden.

If nobody would be adversely affected, then there could be no undue burden.

So you would agree in general that a mostly unenforceable statute
cannot be pre-emptively challenged for constitutionality?

Thus the next question is whether those who are affected adversely will
suffer excessively from obeying the law.

See... In my mind, this should be the controlling question when
discussing the burden of legislation that may encroach on individual
rights; it is what troubles me in Alito's opinion. Now, it may also be
that I am unaware of long-established constitutional law and doctrine
that says that this is ->not<- the controlling question to ask.

He says that he "does not take into account..." the fact that it would
be difficult to enforce. I think he was stating that argument in order
to dismiss it.

Fair enough; I should perhaps take a look at some of his majorities or
concurrences then. (Sigh. Not enough time...)
Still, it still seems to me that unenforceability should not be a
concern; but it may be related to the "cases and controversies" clause
in ways I do not really understand.

That's classical judicial restraint, expressed in pretty much similar
terms by the likes of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, and Felix
Frankfurter on the usually-considered-liberal side (back when the
judicial activists were the Lochner majority). That I like in
general.
I guess the two questions are:
(i) Do you think that enforceability plays a role in considering the
constitutionality of a statute that, on its face, encroaches on
individual, constitutionally-protected, rights?
(ii) In discussing the burden of legislation, does one begin by
considering how many people are severely affected, how severely the
people who are affected are indeed affected, or some combination of
them? As I said, I would think the latter should be the controlling
question; naturally, a very broad and severe legislation is more
clearly objectionable than a very narrow and severe legislation, but
I would still think that it is the severity rather than its spread
that tells us whether a piece of legislation is burdensome or not.
Anyway...
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Alito (was: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll)	08 Nov 2005 11:37:26 AM

(Arturo Magidin) wrote in
news:dkqa6p$2qeg$1@agate.berkeley.edu:

In article <Xns970854203F250fstone69@213.155.197.138>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

(Arturo Magidin) wrote in
news:dkp1ij$2eqa$1@agate.berkeley.edu:

[.snip.]

If there was some doubt that the issue was ripe (i.e., whether or
not any women were actually affected), then I would expect the
appellate court to send it back to the lower level for factual
inquiry; this did not happen.

I see it in Supreme Court dissents all the time: the dissenters say
that such-and-such has not been established, the Court should not
reach a conclusion until it has, and the case should have been sent
back to the lower court for fact-finding. Note that Alito does not
state that there is any problem with making an analysis: only that his
analysis of the particular section differs from the analysis of the
majority (in so far as deciding whether or not it constituted an
'undue burden' or not). He seems to be saying that ->if<- there was a
considerable number of women severely affected, then the plaintiffs
should have provided evidence. He ->does<- say that while both sides
argued about the likely good or ill of the regulation, neither side
seems to have provided any evidence in favor or against either such
proposition.

In a way, he seems to be saying that absent evidence that the
legislation severely impacted people, and absent evidence against it,
the presumption is that the legislation does not cause an undue
burden.

If nobody would be adversely affected, then there could be no undue
burden.

So you would agree in general that a mostly unenforceable statute
cannot be pre-emptively challenged for constitutionality?

I was thinking more along the lines of whether the statute would indeed
harm anybody if it were readily enforceable.

Thus the next question is whether those who are affected adversely
will suffer excessively from obeying the law.

He says that he "does not take into account..." the fact that it
would be difficult to enforce. I think he was stating that argument
in order to dismiss it.

I'm relying on that one phrase about not taking that into account in
deciding whether the provision constitutes an undue burden. Perhaps
he's discussing that particular argument at length in order to give
guidance on possible future cases as to the nature of what would or
would not pass muster, in his opinion.

Fair enough; I should perhaps take a look at some of his majorities or
concurrences then. (Sigh. Not enough time...)

Still, it still seems to me that unenforceability should not be a
concern; but it may be related to the "cases and controversies" clause
in ways I do not really understand.

It's more properly a concern for the legislature. Passing unenforceable
laws being a waste of time and taxpayer's money.

The idea that sticks out in my reading of his opinion is this:
"Whether the legislature�s approach represents sound public policy is
not a question for us to decide. Our task here is simply to decide
whether Section 3209 meets constitutional standards."

Could enforceability fall into an equal justice argument such as
arbitrary or vindictive prosecution or be seen as a "gotcha" against
individuals who were singled out by law enforcement?

(ii) In discussing the burden of legislation, does one begin by
considering how many people are severely affected, how severely the
people who are affected are indeed affected, or some combination of
them? As I said, I would think the latter should be the controlling
question; naturally, a very broad and severe legislation is more
clearly objectionable than a very narrow and severe legislation, but
I would still think that it is the severity rather than its spread
that tells us whether a piece of legislation is burdensome or not.

I would tend to think that both the frequency and the severity of the
adverse effects should be considered along with the level of "state
interest". A law that, if obeyed, had possibly fatal consequences on
only a very few individuals who obeyed the law would still be a bad law,
in my opinion. On the other hand, there are plenty of laws that require
those who would abide by the law to go to considerable expense or to
suffer other burdens such as licensing requirements or other regulatory
compliance requirements. The "burden" put on a small business by
government regulation can be enough to block them completely out of a
market, but that is apparantly offset by the "compelling state
interest" in building barriers to entry that favor a few large
businesses (whoops, I mean protecting consumers ;-).
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"A thief is more moral than a congressman;
when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him."
-- Walter Williams
.

User: "Arturo Magidin"
Title: Re: OT: Alito (was: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll)	08 Nov 2005 01:34:29 PM

In article <Xns9708808B21021fstone69@213.155.197.138>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

magidin@math.berkeley.edu (Arturo Magidin) wrote in
news:dkqa6p$2qeg$1@agate.berkeley.edu:

[.snip.]
I believe the following is your paraphrase of part of the argument
being presented in the dissent (which is part of something Alito says
he gave no weight to, in a footnote):

If nobody would be adversely affected, then there could be no undue
burden.

So you would agree in general that a mostly unenforceable statute
cannot be pre-emptively challenged for constitutionality?

I was thinking more along the lines of whether the statute would indeed
harm anybody if it were readily enforceable.

I don't follow you... Oh. Wait. You mean, you would consider the
potential effect of a statute, as if it were readily enforceable?
(If so, that's exactly what I think one should do, so we would be in
agreement there... That whether a statute meets constitutional muster
is independent of whether it is actually enforced/enforceable, but
depends rather on its effects ->if<- it were in fact enforced)
[.snip.]

Still, it still seems to me that unenforceability should not be a
concern; but it may be related to the "cases and controversies" clause
in ways I do not really understand.

It's more properly a concern for the legislature. Passing unenforceable
laws being a waste of time and taxpayer's money.

Right. So, given that a court does not pass judgement on the wisdom of
a statute, but on whether it passes constitutional muster or not (in
the general situation at hand, I mean), then whether or not the law is
unenforceable should not, normally, enter into an argument of whether
the law passes muster. Is that a fair reading of what you mean?
(It would seem that Alito is saying that is what he does, though I am
still somewhat troubled by the space allowed in his dissent to that
facet of the statute at issue, especially since he then says that
facet played no role in his determination)
[.snip.]

I guess the two questions are:

(i) Do you think that enforceability plays a role in considering the
constitutionality of a statute that, on its face, encroaches on
individual, constitutionally-protected, rights?

Could enforceability fall into an equal justice argument such as
arbitrary or vindictive prosecution or be seen as a "gotcha" against
individuals who were singled out by law enforcement?

I was thinking along the lines of a law that is inherently
unenforceable (as Alito argues this law will generally be), rather
than a law which is haphazardly enforced (e.g., nobody gets ticketed
by jaywalking, except when the cop doesn't like the
person). Certainly, haphazard enforcement (and most especially
targeted enforcement) has been ruled to fail the equal protection
argument.

I would tend to think that both the frequency and the severity of the
adverse effects should be considered along with the level of "state
interest".

The level of state interest has to do with the justification the state
must provide; that is, the level of "state interest" invoked has to do
with whether the law requires regular, heightened, or strict
scrutiny. That determination is supposed to have to do with the nature
of the law itself, rather than with any justification the state may
offer together with the law. If the law is deemed to require regular
scrutiny, then the State only needs to offer a rational justification
with a rational state interest, and there is a presumption of
constitutionality (so the challenger must point to some specific
encroachment, and only then must the State give its reasons). If the
law is deemed to require heightened or strict scrutiny, then there is
a presumption of unconstitutionality which the State must overcome. In
the case of heightened scrutiny, the State must give a "compelling"
state interest; in the case of strict scrutiny, the State must give a
"compelling" state interest, show the legislation is narrowly targeted
towards that interest, and show that there has been an effort to
minimize the ill-effects of the legislation.
So, from what I understand, the level of "state interest" that must be
offered is the response to the level of scrutiny, rather than being
part of the determination of what level is required.
You'll note, for example, that Alito is very careful not to discuss
the rationale behind the statute until ->after<- he has determined
that the statute requires only regular scrutiny, at which point he
notes that the interest expressed by the state does indeed pass the
rational reason test (while also saying, in the preamble, that this
reason, the only one offered by the state, would ->fail<- heightened
scrutiny should the statute indeed require that scrutiny).

A law that, if obeyed, had possibly fatal consequences on
only a very few individuals who obeyed the law would still be a bad law,
in my opinion.

I assume you are using "bad" here in the sense of "not in accordance
to the general constitutional principles", rather than in the sense of
a constitutional law which is a bad idea. Correct?

On the other hand, there are plenty of laws that require
those who would abide by the law to go to considerable expense or to
suffer other burdens such as licensing requirements or other regulatory
compliance requirements. The "burden" put on a small business by
government regulation can be enough to block them completely out of a
market, but that is apparantly offset by the "compelling state
interest" in building barriers to entry that favor a few large
businesses (whoops, I mean protecting consumers ;-).

Hmmm... Okay, I see. It is certainly the case that in many areas of
constitutional law ->who<- gets targeted may be a very important
ingredient of which level of scrutiny the law is subjected to. Thus we
have the "suspect classes/classification" (which trigger strict
scrutiny almost by default), other classes trigger at least heightened
scrutiny; and so on.
I guess what sticks in my craw a bit is the idea that the quantity of
people affected could also be determinative of the level of scrutiny
(with "very few" demanding lesser scrutiny), though such a principle
is not necessarily at work here...
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Alito (was: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll)	08 Nov 2005 02:34:53 PM

(Arturo Magidin) wrote in
news:dkquk5$2vte$1@agate.berkeley.edu:

In article <Xns9708808B21021fstone69@213.155.197.138>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

(Arturo Magidin) wrote in
news:dkqa6p$2qeg$1@agate.berkeley.edu:

[.snip.]

I believe the following is your paraphrase of part of the argument
being presented in the dissent (which is part of something Alito says
he gave no weight to, in a footnote):

If nobody would be adversely affected, then there could be no undue
burden.

So you would agree in general that a mostly unenforceable statute
cannot be pre-emptively challenged for constitutionality?

I was thinking more along the lines of whether the statute would
indeed harm anybody if it were readily enforceable.

I don't follow you... Oh. Wait. You mean, you would consider the
potential effect of a statute, as if it were readily enforceable?

(If so, that's exactly what I think one should do, so we would be in
agreement there... That whether a statute meets constitutional muster
is independent of whether it is actually enforced/enforceable, but
depends rather on its effects ->if<- it were in fact enforced)

Correct.

[.snip.]

Still, it still seems to me that unenforceability should not be a
concern; but it may be related to the "cases and controversies"
clause in ways I do not really understand.

It's more properly a concern for the legislature. Passing
unenforceable laws being a waste of time and taxpayer's money.

Yes, that sounds about right.

(It would seem that Alito is saying that is what he does, though I am
still somewhat troubled by the space allowed in his dissent to that
facet of the statute at issue, especially since he then says that
facet played no role in his determination)

[.snip.]

I guess the two questions are:

(i) Do you think that enforceability plays a role in considering
the constitutionality of a statute that, on its face, encroaches
on individual, constitutionally-protected, rights?

Could enforceability fall into an equal justice argument such as
arbitrary or vindictive prosecution or be seen as a "gotcha" against
individuals who were singled out by law enforcement?

(ii) In discussing the burden of legislation, does one begin by
considering how many people are severely affected, how severely the
people who are affected are indeed affected, or some combination of
them? As I said, I would think the latter should be the controlling
question; naturally, a very broad and severe legislation is more
clearly objectionable than a very narrow and severe legislation,
but I would still think that it is the severity rather than its
spread that tells us whether a piece of legislation is burdensome
or not.

I would tend to think that both the frequency and the severity of the
adverse effects should be considered along with the level of "state
interest".

The level of state interest has to do with the justification the state
must provide; that is, the level of "state interest" invoked has to do
with whether the law requires regular, heightened, or strict
scrutiny. That determination is supposed to have to do with the nature
of the law itself, rather than with any justification the state may
offer together with the law. If the law is deemed to require regular
scrutiny, then the State only needs to offer a rational justification
with a rational state interest, and there is a presumption of
constitutionality (so the challenger must point to some specific
encroachment, and only then must the State give its reasons). If the
law is deemed to require heightened or strict scrutiny, then there is
a presumption of unconstitutionality which the State must overcome. In
the case of heightened scrutiny, the State must give a "compelling"
state interest; in the case of strict scrutiny, the State must give a
"compelling" state interest, show the legislation is narrowly targeted
towards that interest, and show that there has been an effort to
minimize the ill-effects of the legislation.

So, from what I understand, the level of "state interest" that must be
offered is the response to the level of scrutiny, rather than being
part of the determination of what level is required.

Ah, OK, now I understand.
I found this discussion of the levels of judicial scrutiny and the
standards by which different cases are assigned to those levels.
http://www.auburn.edu/~whitesw/PHIL1027/scrutinyweb.html

You'll note, for example, that Alito is very careful not to discuss
the rationale behind the statute until ->after<- he has determined
that the statute requires only regular scrutiny, at which point he
notes that the interest expressed by the state does indeed pass the
rational reason test (while also saying, in the preamble, that this
reason, the only one offered by the state, would ->fail<- heightened
scrutiny should the statute indeed require that scrutiny).

Yes, I see that.

A law that, if obeyed, had possibly fatal consequences on
only a very few individuals who obeyed the law would still be a bad
law, in my opinion.

I assume you are using "bad" here in the sense of "not in accordance
to the general constitutional principles", rather than in the sense of
a constitutional law which is a bad idea. Correct?

More the latter than the former. I should have been more clear on that.

On the other hand, there are plenty of laws that require
those who would abide by the law to go to considerable expense or to
suffer other burdens such as licensing requirements or other
regulatory compliance requirements. The "burden" put on a small
business by government regulation can be enough to block them
completely out of a market, but that is apparantly offset by the
"compelling state interest" in building barriers to entry that favor a
few large businesses (whoops, I mean protecting consumers ;-).

It seems that economic activity is not a fundamental right that would
trigger strict scrutiny, so that the "regular" level is used instead, thus
as long as the state has some rational basis for the law it will pass
muster.
Suspect classifications include race, national origin and "alienage".
Lesser suspicion is applied to gender and illegitimacy.

I guess what sticks in my craw a bit is the idea that the quantity of
people affected could also be determinative of the level of scrutiny
(with "very few" demanding lesser scrutiny), though such a principle
is not necessarily at work here...

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
The difference between stupidity and genius
is that genius has its limits. -Albert Einstein
.

User: "Arturo Magidin"
Title: Re: OT: Alito (was: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll)	08 Nov 2005 02:59:48 PM

In article <Xns97089EA23C77Efstone69@213.155.197.138>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

magidin@math.berkeley.edu (Arturo Magidin) wrote in
news:dkquk5$2vte$1@agate.berkeley.edu:

[.snip.]
Seems like we've taken this a far as it can go. Thanks for taking the
time. A few closing comments...

I was thinking more along the lines of whether the statute would
indeed harm anybody if it were readily enforceable.

I don't follow you... Oh. Wait. You mean, you would consider the
potential effect of a statute, as if it were readily enforceable?

(If so, that's exactly what I think one should do, so we would be in
agreement there... That whether a statute meets constitutional muster
is independent of whether it is actually enforced/enforceable, but
depends rather on its effects ->if<- it were in fact enforced)

Correct.

As I said, I am troubled by the amount of space that Alito seems to
devote to this aspect given his express statement that the aspect
played no role, but there could be any number of reasons for that. I
will leave it as something I am 'vaguely troubled by' and that I
really should look into more in his other opinions. But it would seem
that at least from your view-point we agree on the approach to take,
which is heartening to me; means that some of the major premises I use
when thinking about this issue are not exclusively on my side of the
ideological divide...

I found this discussion of the levels of judicial scrutiny and the
standards by which different cases are assigned to those levels.

http://www.auburn.edu/~whitesw/PHIL1027/scrutinyweb.html

Thanks. I appreciate the link, as it lists several specific examples
and notes the difference between "compelling state interest" and
"important state interest", which I did not make. I'll take a more
careful look when time permits, but it should help sharpen my
understanding on scrutiny.
[.snip.]

A law that, if obeyed, had possibly fatal consequences on
only a very few individuals who obeyed the law would still be a bad
law, in my opinion.

I assume you are using "bad" here in the sense of "not in accordance
to the general constitutional principles", rather than in the sense of
a constitutional law which is a bad idea. Correct?

More the latter than the former. I should have been more clear on that.

Hmm... Okay; but then, as far as the latter is concerned, the Courts
should remain silent (based on judicial restraint). Courts shouldn't speak
on whether something is a good or bad idea (though they may speak as
to whether a law is well-written or badly written, in the latter case
meaning prone to misinterpretation, vague, over-broad, etc.) That's
more a matter of public policy (hence, legislative/executive).
Oh, well. I can say that you haven't entirely allayed my philosophical
concerns with Judge Alito, but this has helped somewhat in some
directions. Thanks.
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
.

User: "RAM"
Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll	04 Nov 2005 07:59:02 PM

Fred Stone wrote:

"A.Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:i0qlm11gu4boktqsh1mf9joc4l109v54o8@4ax.com:

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 04:09:15 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

"Ike" <accordiondocxyzxyzxyz@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:PIzaf.4606$m81.3502@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9703CF5963BB2fstone69@213.155.197.138...

bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) wrote in
news:dkebkp$isl$1 @geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:

On virtually every key measure of presidential character and
performance, the new survey found that Bush has never been less
popular with the American people. Currently 39 percent approve of
the job he is doing as president

CBS (IIRC) announced their latest poll yesterday, and it was only
35%.

Cheny was at 19%, down 9 points in the past month.

Congress was at 34%.

It's real easy to get results like that when your survey sample
includes only 27% Republicans and then you weight them down to 23%.

There are less republicans than ever. maybe there are only 23%. I
sure wouldn't want to be caught dead in that party since day one.

You're falsely generalizing from your own irrationality. The numbers
of republicans and democrats should be roughly equal, according to the
last election.

Do you really think that all Americans belong to one of the two major
parties or that people consistently vote the party line?

No, and I note that "Independents" were the largest group of respondents
in that survey.

There are plenty of people who consider themselves independent and
plenty of people, even party members who chose to sit out a given
election for any number of reasons.

Not to mention the fact that in some states you have to register for
one party or the other for primary purposes but that does not obligate
you as to how you vote in the general election.

I'm sure that there are also at least a few people who would declare
themselves independent for poll purposes but register one way or the
other out of necessity due to peculiarities of local voting laws.

The bottom line is that party affiliation can be a poor indicator as
to who will win in a given election and, by the same token, who wins
in a given election can be a poor indicator of party affiliation.

While this is true, it is also true that Democrats do not outnumber
Republicans by more than 10%.

Where in the poll response does it show that?

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"A thief is more moral than a congressman;
when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him."
-- Walter Williams

User: "Ike"
Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll	04 Nov 2005 02:43:17 PM

"A.Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i0qlm11gu4boktqsh1mf9joc4l109v54o8@4ax.com...

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 04:09:15 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

"Ike" <accordiondocxyzxyzxyz@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:PIzaf.4606$m81.3502@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9703CF5963BB2fstone69@213.155.197.138...

bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) wrote in news:dkebkp$isl$1
@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:

CBS (IIRC) announced their latest poll yesterday, and it was only
35%.

Cheny was at 19%, down 9 points in the past month.

Congress was at 34%.

It's real easy to get results like that when your survey sample
includes only 27% Republicans and then you weight them down to 23%.

There are less republicans than ever. maybe there are only 23%. I sure
wouldn't want to be caught dead in that party since day one.

You're falsely generalizing from your own irrationality. The numbers of
republicans and democrats should be roughly equal, according to the last
election.

Do you really think that all Americans belong to one of the two major
parties or that people consistently vote the party line?

There are plenty of people who consider themselves independent and
plenty of people, even party members who chose to sit out a given
election for any number of reasons.

Not to mention the fact that in some states you have to register for
one party or the other for primary purposes but that does not obligate
you as to how you vote in the general election.

I'm sure that there are also at least a few people who would declare
themselves independent for poll purposes but register one way or the
other out of necessity due to peculiarities of local voting laws.

The bottom line is that party affiliation can be a poor indicator as
to who will win in a given election and, by the same token, who wins
in a given election can be a poor indicator of party affiliation.

And there must be less of hem now than ever. And Fred, I was never accused
of being excessively rational especially by reactionaries of the right or
cowards of the left.
.

User: "Stanley Friesen"
Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll	04 Nov 2005 09:10:41 AM

"A.Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 04:09:15 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

You're falsely generalizing from your own irrationality. The numbers of
republicans and democrats should be roughly equal, according to the last
election.

Do you really think that all Americans belong to one of the two major
parties or that people consistently vote the party line?

I am proud of the fact that, until recently, I did *not* vote the party
line as such.

Not to mention the fact that in some states you have to register for
one party or the other for primary purposes but that does not obligate
you as to how you vote in the general election.

Indeed voting in primaries is the main reason I am registered in a major
party.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.

User: "Earle Jones"
Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll	07 Nov 2005 01:27:46 PM

In article <PIzaf.4606$m81.3502@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Ike" <accordiondocxyzxyzxyz@mindspring.com> wrote:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9703CF5963BB2fstone69@213.155.197.138...

bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) wrote in news:dkebkp$isl$1
@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:

CBS (IIRC) announced their latest poll yesterday, and it was only 35%.

Cheny was at 19%, down 9 points in the past month.

Congress was at 34%.

It's real easy to get results like that when your survey sample includes
only 27% Republicans and then you weight them down to 23%.

There are less republicans than ever. maybe there are only 23%. I sure
wouldn't want to be caught dead in that party since day one.

*
I was a fiscally conservative republican at one time. People have
asked me why I left the party. I tell them, "I didn't leave the
party -- the party left me."
earle
*
.

User: "Robert Grumbine"
Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll	07 Nov 2005 01:42:52 PM

In article <earle.jones-673589.11274607112005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote:

In article <PIzaf.4606$m81.3502@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Ike" <accordiondocxyzxyzxyz@mindspring.com> wrote:

[snp]

There are less republicans than ever. maybe there are only 23%. I sure
wouldn't want to be caught dead in that party since day one.

*
I was a fiscally conservative republican at one time. People have
asked me why I left the party. I tell them, "I didn't leave the
party -- the party left me."

I've been hearing that a lot from ex-Republicans. They're
probably the group I know most ***** with the crowd in
power. Things like responsible stewardship of the public trust,
fiscal conservatism, no foreign adventurism, keeping the government
nose out of private matters (corporate _or_ individual), etc., etc.,
were why they joined the party. Now, if they want these things,
they have to look to the other party, or just pray.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
.

User: "APOCALYPSE"
Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll	03 Nov 2005 10:43:13 PM

No survey that includes Republicans will ever be 100% accurate.
Republicans are statistically less likely to respond to polls because
Repubs are statistically more distrusting of any polling effort and
more fearful of being misrepresented. The numbers are so pathetic, your
average political poll often weights Republicans up at least 5% to
compensate for the numbers of unanswered phone calls from republican
voters.
.

User: "Ike"
Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll	04 Nov 2005 02:43:19 PM

"APOCALYPSE" <reignorshyne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131079393.773773.78490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

No survey that includes Republicans will ever be 100% accurate.

Republicans are statistically less likely to respond to polls because
Repubs are statistically more distrusting of any polling effort and
more fearful of being misrepresented. The numbers are so pathetic, your
average political poll often weights Republicans up at least 5% to
compensate for the numbers of unanswered phone calls from republican
voters.

I'm not a Republican and I tell them, "We don't accept any soliicitations or
surveys at this here number, please remove it from yalls database."
.

User: "Earle Jones"
Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll	07 Nov 2005 01:29:36 PM

In article <HJPaf.4202$2y.2846@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Ike" <accordiondocxyzxyzxyz@mindspring.com> wrote:

"APOCALYPSE" <reignorshyne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131079393.773773.78490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

No survey that includes Republicans will ever be 100% accurate.

Republicans are statistically less likely to respond to polls because
Repubs are statistically more distrusting of any polling effort and
more fearful of being misrepresented. The numbers are so pathetic, your
average political poll often weights Republicans up at least 5% to
compensate for the numbers of unanswered phone calls from republican
voters.

I'm not a Republican and I tell them, "We don't accept any soliicitations or
surveys at this here number, please remove it from yalls database."

*
Shouldn't 'yalls' have an apostrophe?
earle
*
.

User: "Ike"
Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll	11 Nov 2005 09:04:57 PM

"Earle Jones" <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:earle.jones-017B6B.11293607112005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

In article <HJPaf.4202$2y.2846@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Ike" <accordiondocxyzxyzxyz@mindspring.com> wrote:

"APOCALYPSE" <reignorshyne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131079393.773773.78490@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

No survey that includes Republicans will ever be 100% accurate.

Republicans are statistically less likely to respond to polls because
Repubs are statistically more distrusting of any polling effort and
more fearful of being misrepresented. The numbers are so pathetic, your
average political poll often weights Republicans up at least 5% to
compensate for the numbers of unanswered phone calls from republican
voters.

I'm not a Republican and I tell them, "We don't accept any soliicitations
or
surveys at this here number, please remove it from yalls database."

*
Shouldn't 'yalls' have an apostrophe?

earle
*

Several.
.

User: "Mark Isaak"
Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll	04 Nov 2005 12:12:59 PM

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 02:30:07 GMT, "Ike"
<accordiondocxyzxyzxyz@mindspring.com> wrote:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9703CF5963BB2fstone69@213.155.197.138...

bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) wrote in news:dkebkp$isl$1
@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:

CBS (IIRC) announced their latest poll yesterday, and it was only 35%.

Cheny was at 19%, down 9 points in the past month.

Congress was at 34%.

It's real easy to get results like that when your survey sample includes
only 27% Republicans and then you weight them down to 23%.

There are less republicans than ever. maybe there are only 23%. I sure
wouldn't want to be caught dead in that party since day one.

I estimate that approximately 5% of the members of congress who call
themselves Republican are actually Republican. The rest support big
(huge, overwhelming) government, eschew all semblance of fiscal
responsibility, oppose state and individual rights, and want Christian
fundamentalism made the law of the land. There is no way that their
position can be squared with the Republicanism even of Reagan's time.
Support the real Republican party: Vote Democrat!
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll	04 Nov 2005 03:06:07 PM

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 18:12:59 GMT, in alt.atheism , Mark Isaak
<eciton@earthlinkNOSPAM.next> in
<pm8nm199o040a71ve65o8t0u996f9kpv27@4ax.com> wrote:
[snip]

To find the real Republicans in the House look to those who did not
object to, or vote to redress, the SCOTUS Eminent Domain decision.
That decision, with a supposedly liberal majority on the court, was
for a weaker Federal government, for local control, it was
non-activist, it was everything the Party claims to want. And, yet,
they voted to stop it. Go figure.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: "RAM"
Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll	04 Nov 2005 07:54:47 PM

Fred Stone wrote:

bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) wrote in news:dkebkp$isl$1
@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:

CBS (IIRC) announced their latest poll yesterday, and it was only 35%.

Cheny was at 19%, down 9 points in the past month.

Congress was at 34%.

It's real easy to get results like that when your survey sample includes
only 27% Republicans and then you weight them down to 23%.

Where is this cited?

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"A thief is more moral than a congressman;
when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him."
-- Walter Williams

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll	04 Nov 2005 08:32:20 PM

"RAM" <rmathers@macomb.com> wrote in
news:1131155687.803620.99070@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) wrote in news:dkebkp$isl$1
@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:

CBS (IIRC) announced their latest poll yesterday, and it was only
35%.

Cheny was at 19%, down 9 points in the past month.

Congress was at 34%.

It's real easy to get results like that when your survey sample
includes only 27% Republicans and then you weight them down to 23%.

Where is this cited?

It's in the detailed report which can be downloaded from the CBS news
website.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/poll_1102
It's a .pdf file
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"A thief is more moral than a congressman;
when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him."
-- Walter Williams
.

User: "RAM"
Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll	04 Nov 2005 09:10:05 PM

Fred Stone wrote:

"RAM" <rmathers@macomb.com> wrote in
news:1131155687.803620.99070@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) wrote in news:dkebkp$isl$1
@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:

CBS (IIRC) announced their latest poll yesterday, and it was only
35%.

Cheny was at 19%, down 9 points in the past month.

Congress was at 34%.

It's real easy to get results like that when your survey sample
includes only 27% Republicans and then you weight them down to 23%.

Where is this cited?

It's in the detailed report which can be downloaded from the CBS news
website.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/poll_1102

I got a message I did not have permission to access this site.
Is the above complete?

It's a .pdf file

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"A thief is more moral than a congressman;
when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him."
-- Walter Williams

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll	05 Nov 2005 06:41:57 AM

"RAM" <rmathers@macomb.com> wrote in news:1131160205.620161.161180
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"RAM" <rmathers@macomb.com> wrote in
news:1131155687.803620.99070@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) wrote in news:dkebkp

$isl$1

@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:

On virtually every key measure of presidential character and
performance, the new survey found that Bush has never been less
popular with the American people. Currently 39 percent approve

the job he is doing as president

CBS (IIRC) announced their latest poll yesterday, and it was

only

35%.

Cheny was at 19%, down 9 points in the past month.

Congress was at 34%.

It's real easy to get results like that when your survey sample
includes only 27% Republicans and then you weight them down to

23%.

Where is this cited?

It's in the detailed report which can be downloaded from the CBS news
website.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/poll_1102

I got a message I did not have permission to access this site.

Is the above complete?

Yes, it's complete. You might have to navigate to it from the main page.

It's a .pdf file

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"A thief is more moral than a congressman;
when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him."
-- Walter Williams

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"A thief is more moral than a congressman;
when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him."
-- Walter Williams
.

User: "Earle Jones"
Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll	07 Nov 2005 01:22:58 PM

In article <1131155687.803620.99070@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"RAM" <rmathers@macomb.com> wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) wrote in news:dkebkp$isl$1
@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:

CBS (IIRC) announced their latest poll yesterday, and it was only 35%.

Cheny was at 19%, down 9 points in the past month.

Congress was at 34%.

It's real easy to get results like that when your survey sample includes
only 27% Republicans and then you weight them down to 23%.

Where is this cited?

*
Out of his ***** -- where all his data comes from.
earle
*
.

User: "towelie"
Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll	03 Nov 2005 07:48:29 PM

TV's Fred Stone wrote:

bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) wrote in news:dkebkp$isl$1
@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:

CBS (IIRC) announced their latest poll yesterday, and it was only 35%.

Cheny was at 19%, down 9 points in the past month.

Congress was at 34%.

It's real easy to get results like that when your survey sample includes
only 27% Republicans and then you weight them down to 23%.

And only 31% Democrats, which makes the difference only 1% above the margin
for sampling error. Why aren't you telling the whole story, Fred? Oh yeah,
it's because it will cause your strawman to crumble.
--
aa #2133
ap #19
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll	03 Nov 2005 08:35:57 PM

"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:wKidnZlRstRmIPfeRVn-rQ@centurytel.net:

TV's Fred Stone wrote:

bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby D. Bryant) wrote in news:dkebkp$isl$1
@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:

CBS (IIRC) announced their latest poll yesterday, and it was only
35%.

Cheny was at 19%, down 9 points in the past month.

Congress was at 34%.

It's real easy to get results like that when your survey sample
includes only 27% Republicans and then you weight them down to 23%.

And only 31% Democrats, which makes the difference only 1% above the
margin for sampling error.

You need to work on your math, towelie. Democrats were 34% of the
sample.
And then they weighted the Republicans down by 4%. They didn't weight
the Democrats, and they weighted Independents UP by as much as they
pushed Republicans down.
It's real easy to get the result you want if you skew the sample by more
than 10%.

Why aren't you telling the whole story,
Fred? Oh yeah, it's because it will cause your strawman to crumble.

Why aren't *you* telling the truth?
Raw data from the poll is here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/poll_1102
It's an acrobat file.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"A thief is more moral than a congressman;
when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him."
-- Walter Williams
.

User: "Andrew F. Heil"
Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll	04 Nov 2005 12:17:00 PM

Cheny was at 19%, down 9 points in the past month.

I believe those 19& would represent what Donald Rumsfeld termed the
"dead enders".
Bush and Cheney could barbecue kindergartners on live TV, and those 19%
would remain steadfast in their support! (And they'd probably blame
the BBQing on Clinton, anyway)
.

User: "Bobby D. Bryant"
Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll	04 Nov 2005 02:02:59 PM

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005, "Andrew F. Heil" <andrewfheil2@yahoo.com> wrote:

Cheny was at 19%, down 9 points in the past month.

I believe those 19& would represent what Donald Rumsfeld termed the
"dead enders".

Bush and Cheney could barbecue kindergartners on live TV, and those
19% would remain steadfast in their support! (And they'd probably
blame the BBQing on Clinton, anyway)

What's surprising is that party-issue polls rarely go outside the
30%-70% range. I think even some of the dead-enders have abandoned
Cheney.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.

User: "AC"
Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll	04 Nov 2005 03:10:02 PM

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 20:02:59 +0000 (UTC),
Bobby D. Bryant <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005, "Andrew F. Heil" <andrewfheil2@yahoo.com> wrote:

Cheny was at 19%, down 9 points in the past month.

I believe those 19& would represent what Donald Rumsfeld termed the
"dead enders".

Bush and Cheney could barbecue kindergartners on live TV, and those
19% would remain steadfast in their support! (And they'd probably
blame the BBQing on Clinton, anyway)

What's surprising is that party-issue polls rarely go outside the
30%-70% range. I think even some of the dead-enders have abandoned
Cheney.

Oh, I think you'll see a lot of Bush's inner circle getting the evil eye
from Republicans before too long. It sure looks like Rove may have escaped
indictment, only to find himself a very unpopular man in Republican circles.
2006 is coming up fast, and Bush and Co. are becoming a serious liability
for the Republicans.
I doubt they're terribly worried about Cheney, though. It's not as if he
presents any kind of substantive political force, other than to make the
President look bad.
The real question now is whether Bush's loyalty to his inner circle is going
to overwhelm any political sensibilities he may happen to possess. I think
we're finally seeing him completely for what he is, a half-witted yes man
with no real skills as a political leader.
This is what money bought you, America. An incompetent who is damaging his
own party.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.

User: "RAM"
Title: Re: OT: Bush's Integrity Is Questioned According to Post-ABC Poll	04 Nov 2005 09:01:39 PM

AC wrote:

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 20:02:59 +0000 (UTC),
Bobby D. Bryant <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005, "Andrew F. Heil" <andrewfheil2@yahoo.com> wrote:

Cheny was at 19%, down 9 points in the past month.

I believe those 19& would represent what Donald Rumsfeld termed the
"dead enders".

Bush and Cheney could barbecue kindergartners on live TV, and those
19% would remain steadfast in their support! (And they'd probably
blame the BBQing on Clinton, anyway)

What's surprising is that party-issue polls rarely go outside the
30%-70% range. I think even some of the dead-enders have abandoned
Cheney.

Oh, I think you'll see a lot of Bush's inner circle getting the evil eye
from Republicans before too long. It sure looks like Rove may have escaped
indictment, only to find himself a very unpopular man in Republican circles.
2006 is coming up fast, and Bush and Co. are becoming a serious liability
for the Republicans.

I doubt they're terribly worried about Cheney, though. It's not as if he
presents any kind of substantive political force, other than to make the
President look bad.

The real question now is whether Bush's loyalty to his inner circle is going
to overwhelm any political sensibilities he may happen to possess. I think
we're finally seeing him completely for what he is, a half-witted yes man
with no real skills as a political leader.

This is what money bought you, America. An incompetent who is damaging his
own party.

This incompetence is the classic result of Republican elitism as oposed
to Democratic elitism. Republicans want symbolic leaders who can use
their prestige as an elite and the power of government to ensure wealth
is redistributed to the wealthy, whereas the Demo elitist want
competent politicians to push government to prevent wholesale
redistribution of wealth to the wealthy. This can be accomplished by
effective government programs or taxes by Demos. Republicans need cold
or real wars not programs and tax breaks not taxes. In this regard
Bush is a classic elitist who uses the state's regime to promote and
protect the most economically powerful from populist and progressive
sentiments. And he has been a major success. He has engaged in a
stealth class war internally and real war externally. To do the former
he needed the latter. History played into his hands a winni