Gallup: No one really cares about SCOTUS pick’s gender, ethnicity, or religion
posted at 9:40 am on May 8, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Most people expect the White House to start leaking the name of Barack Obama’s next nominee to the Supreme Court today in order for it to dominate the Sunday news shows — and to stop discussion of the Gulf oil spill and the botched attack on Times Square. Most people also expect that Obama will check off a couple of demographic boxes when making his pick, whether that means ethnicity, gender, religion, or even college, as some people are complaining that the court has become too Harvard-heavy. But what do the American people want from the next justice? As Gallup discovers, they mainly just care about performance, and have a particular approach in mind:
The majority of Americans say it doesn’t matter to them whether President Obama nominates a Protestant to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the only Protestant now on the court. As has been the case with previous vacancies, a majority of Americans say the same about a potential minority or female nominee. …
Respondents in Gallup’s May 3-6 survey were reminded that when Justice Stevens resigns, “none of the eight remaining Supreme Court justices will be of a Protestant religion.” Even with this direct statement, only 7% of those interviewed said it was essential that the new justice be a Protestant, while another 22% said it was a good idea, but not essential, and 66% said it didn’t matter. …
The 24% of Americans who say it is essential or a good idea that the next justice be a woman is slightly lower than the 32% who responded in similar fashion in a Gallup poll conducted last May — before Obama announced Sotomayor as his nominee. It is possible that the slight decrease in sentiment in favor of a female nominee reflects the fact that with Sotomayor’s confirmation, the court now includes two female justices.
In fact, the overwhelming majority of Americans just don’t care about demographics. Gallup offered five responses in their survey: essential, good idea but not essential, doesn’t matter, bad idea, and no opinion. No demographic category got above 7% for essential, and none got above 22% for good idea. At the same time, no demographic got below 66% for “doesn’t matter,” and that was for Protestants:
What Americans do want is a justice that will turn the court in a conservative direction. That was also true last year when Obama picked Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter, and is even more true now than when George Bush had to replace Sandra Day O’Connor in 2005. Forty-two percent want a more conservative court, compared to 27% who want a more liberal court and 24% who want the status quo. To be fair, the status quo with Stevens is liberal enough, but the desire for conservatives on the Supreme Court has only gotten stronger since Obama got elected.
With these mandates in mind, Obama would do best to ignore the demographics and pick a conservative jurist, or at least a bona-fide moderate. He won’t, of course, but the next-best thing he could do would be to avoid bragging about diversity on the court when he announces his decision. Only a handful of Americans give a damn about diversity as an end unto itself; we’re much more interested in performance and qualification.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
That is generally true, gender and ethnic picks are not for the public but to intimidate Senators.
Mr. Joe on May 8, 2010 at 9:44 AM
That is why they had to use a black woman to go after Clarence Thomas. It is like a pokomon power that has to be paried correctly.
Mr. Joe on May 8, 2010 at 9:45 AM
I lol’d. As if.
If it’s Kagan, I’ll be relieved.
Purple Fury on May 8, 2010 at 9:47 AM
Face it HotAirians……
…..Unless it affects kids soccer games, choir rehearsals, how much they pay at the gas pump or prices of Potato Chips at Walmart, most Americans don’t give a Kenyan plug nickel about the Supreme Court.
Lucifer could sail thru the confirmation process, McCain would call him “my friend”, Lindsay Graham would try his best to get in a photo with him. Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Scott Brown would all hail him in a presser as “a voice of continued moderation on the Court”…….and of course Christ Matthews would get a tingle up his leg.
PappyD61 on May 8, 2010 at 9:48 AM
I only care about the race, ethnicity, religion, etc. in so far as they mean the justice will be empathetic wise minorities inclined to wipe themselves with certain passages of the Constitution.
darii on May 8, 2010 at 9:54 AM
Yeah, right. Obama is the personification of progressive racism and identity politics. He is the opposite of being color-blind.
Daggett on May 8, 2010 at 9:57 AM
Start leaking?
Start leaking?
When has this administration ever stopped with the trial balloons?
Skandia Recluse on May 8, 2010 at 9:58 AM
ROFL!!!! +1000
Daggett on May 8, 2010 at 9:58 AM
Just pray this is the last nominee Obambi gets to put forward. The health of the conservative or “originalist” justices’ becomes more important than the 2010 elections.
sheriff246 on May 8, 2010 at 9:59 AM
As the old saying goes wish in one hand and sh*t in the other and see which gets filled first. Imagine the American people wanting a court that will stick with the Constitution!
Cindy Munford on May 8, 2010 at 9:59 AM
This type of poll really is odd to me. I’m not in the camp that believes the presidency is nearly as important as people think. It’s the industries feeding off of every single move that make it seem that way, more than reality.
BUT, the one aspect of any presidential election is that they do get to pick the next judges.
Therefore, to suggest that people want a more conservative court, after having elected Obama? That defies realism.
However he may have persuaded some that he was more moderate than his agenda is proving to be, surely there wasn’t a soul who voted for the man who thought that he’d pick more conservative judges than McCain.
I’m going to conclude that this poll really is one of those outlier deals.
AnninCA on May 8, 2010 at 10:13 AM
It’s crap like this that helps keep the race-baiters in business. They insist that “only” a black justice can understand certain issues, that “only” a woman will empathize with “women’s” rights. And so on. And the stinking media just keeps feeding it in order to sell papers and airtime. Everyone needs to get a grip and realize that the job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law in the light of Constitution.
JamesLee on May 8, 2010 at 10:15 AM
Obama`s pick for the Supreme Court will be one that
will assure any Immigration Law will be struck down,
or side with the Liberal Party in any Immigration
court challenge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
canopfor on May 8, 2010 at 10:17 AM
This is not really that shocking to me. A huge majority is in no way sexist, racist, homophobic, or even particularly “devout” when it comes to religion. They just want common sense and equal opportunity (not the same as outcome) in life.
Mord on May 8, 2010 at 10:21 AM
I know many, many fairly fiscally conservative women who voted for Obama, frankly, over the threat to abortion rights.
I may have disagreed with their priorities, but I certainly understood it. It was because of his choice to the Supreme Court that he won their vote.
AnninCA on May 8, 2010 at 10:24 AM
:) :) :)
Stupid but at first glance I thought his was wearing some sort of Micky Mouse shirt and thought it wasn’t going to be a serious article.
Ragamuffin on May 8, 2010 at 10:24 AM
I’m not the sharpest knife on the Xmas tree but didn’t the voting take place well prior to any SCOTUS picks taking place? Maybe way back in Nov of 2008.
Ragamuffin on May 8, 2010 at 10:27 AM
So you suggest nobody had an idea that he would choose liberal judges? LOL*
OK.
AnninCA on May 8, 2010 at 10:30 AM
We have a “president” who was elected solely on the basis of his skin color, how’s that working out?
Let’s try something new and different – let’s select the best candidate, based on experience and accomplishments.
Barry belongs managing the Cheap Suit Dept. at the Peoria Wall Mart.
Lesson learned.
NoDonkey on May 8, 2010 at 10:42 AM
Probably so liberal that they would allow infanticide. Nice work ladies./
CWforFreedom on May 8, 2010 at 10:53 AM
Liberals are still way, way, way too concerned about what’s between your legs as opposed to what’s between your ears.
Red Cloud on May 8, 2010 at 10:56 AM
Diversity of incompetence is the only kind we’ll be getting with an Obama nominee.
RachDubya on May 8, 2010 at 10:57 AM
If you’re going to try to debate Ann, you have to remember not to place value on silly things like facts and dates. That kind of frivilous chat has no place in REAL debate.
Frankly, I think it was Obama’s handling of the stock market crash the other day that won Obama the popular vote. People saw how he handled it and so they got in their time-travel machine and voted for him.
RachDubya on May 8, 2010 at 11:00 AM
“We don’t pay attention to national polls.” – David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager
This is one promise that the Obama team has actually kept.
Left Coast Right Mind on May 8, 2010 at 11:18 AM
What would you expect the results to be from a poll like this? Let’s see, answer correctly and let’s move on to the next question. Answer incorrectly and expect a “hurr-umph!” and an eye-roll as they back away from you a foot.
Marcus on May 8, 2010 at 11:27 AM
***
Therefore, to suggest that people want a more conservative court, after having elected Obama? That defies realism.
However he may have persuaded some that he was more moderate than his agenda is proving to be, surely there wasn’t a soul who voted for the man who thought that he’d pick more conservative judges than McCain. (emphasis provided)
***
AnninCA on May 8, 2010 at 10:13 AM
The problem is that most independent voters don’t think about SCOTUS selections when in the ballot box. And, for whatever reason, dolts like Brooks, Buckley, Frum, Noonan, et al. didn’t see Obama as the radical that he is.
BuckeyeSam on May 8, 2010 at 11:32 AM
I think you state the problems of “outlier” polls succinctly.
AnninCA on May 8, 2010 at 11:32 AM
I agree. That was the tipping point. McCain’s age bothered alot of people. His erratic behavior was off-putting. Undecideds decided.
However, this poll is still way wierd.
AnninCA on May 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM
FIFY.
BuckeyeSam on May 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM
That issue is still very much 50/50 in our society, with women being much more pro-abortion than men.
It was definitely an issue. Now, my take on it? The fear generated successfully that a GOP president would tip the court in favor of overturning Roe Vs. Wade was an easy out for many women voters.
They won’t risk that. Regardless of what the far-right/anti-abortionists want, a majority of women, anyway, aren’t willing to go back to the alleys.
AnninCA on May 8, 2010 at 11:36 AM
But, again, this poll simply doesn’t jibe. Of course, he’s going to try to balance the Court, with women/minorities/etc.
That also will probably serve us well in the long run.
AnninCA on May 8, 2010 at 11:38 AM
Explain the practical effect on abortion rights that a conservative, making SCOTUS appointments, will have on abortion rights. If you respond, describe how the appointment of a conservative will affect those rights. Specifically, describe the situation and the timetable. And even if SCOTUS overturned Roe, please describe the fallout.
BuckeyeSam on May 8, 2010 at 11:42 AM
Personally, Sam, I don’t worry about Roe VS. Wade being overturned. I think I’d look at judicial decisions from a different perspective.
BUT, I’m simply sharing with you guys my own experience in the election. A lot of women I know really do have good reason to vote Dem. They are teachers, for example.
But that wasn’t the big “reason.”
Abortion rights were, and the fear of that being overturned, discussed ad nauseum of course by liberals (and which may be rooted in truth, too) was the final decision maker for them.
They went for Obama. At least he would appoint liberal judges who would protect that.
Abortion is truly the divisive issue of my generation, anyway.
And people who are moderate loathe the notion that the crowd that kills abortion doctors, protests, etc., will ever see political power again. That’s the truth.
Everyone talks about race today.
But I personally think?
This is a bigger issue.
AnninCA on May 8, 2010 at 11:48 AM
Women, in short, have pretty much decided that they want power over their own medical choices.
And that even includes women who are pro-choice.
AnninCA on May 8, 2010 at 11:50 AM
Gads, sorry……pro-life, I meant.
AnninCA on May 8, 2010 at 11:51 AM
If Gallup wants to do a poll about identity politics on SCOTUS, why do they leave out the most relevant one for this time around? Kagan, the odds on favorite nominee, is a half in the closet, half out of the closet gay women. No doubt, should she secure the position, she will come all the way out, and we will then have a gay seat on the court. Why not ask people how they feel about that?
Anon Y. Mous on May 8, 2010 at 11:56 AM
It’s really quite simple. Women want power over their own medical choices.
I’ve never really understood how arch-conservatives reconcile their politics on this one.
It’s too obvious.
Want to convince them? Fine, but do it through methods other than controlling healthcare.
AnninCA on May 8, 2010 at 12:06 PM
I suspect there’s been quite a few that are gay, but in the closet because of political PC.
I don’t care. Do you?
AnninCA on May 8, 2010 at 12:08 PM
I personally think this issue is why “pundits” are surprised that Independents don’t buy into his entire agenda.
But they did elect him.
It was over the Supreme Court appointments. That’s really what a lot of people feared.
And it wasn’t fear of the liberals. It was fear of the right-wing abortion issue.
Sad, huh?
But I do believe that’s why he was elected.
AnninCA on May 8, 2010 at 12:10 PM
So most people will support a woman appointment, provided she leans towards women in this issue.
The GOP may earn back respect over fiscal issues, but not until the clean house, frankly.
But this issue is quite as big as immigration, just not quite as “loud.”
It’s a silent reason, and the GOP will continue to lose women Independents who do not agree with the anti-abortion faction.
It’s truly a dealbreaker.
AnninCA on May 8, 2010 at 12:13 PM
Haha. This is ridiculous. The 24% who want the status quo presumably would want Stevens to be replaced with someone similar. Stevens was quite liberal. The 27% who want a more liberal court want someone at least as liberal as Stevens. That’s 49% who want someone as liberal as Stevens or more. Only 42% want someone who is more conservative than Stevens.
Somehow out of that 49% to 42% preference for a liberal you conclude that “What Americans do want is a justice that will turn the court in a conservative direction” and “Obama would do best to… pick a conservative jurist, or at least a bona-fide moderate.”
tneloms on May 8, 2010 at 12:13 PM
Oh well! If you say so. Are you always right?
Vince on May 8, 2010 at 12:14 PM
By the way, Kagan is probably to the right of Stevens, so nominating her would be somewhere between the “more conservative court” and “status quo” choices.
tneloms on May 8, 2010 at 12:17 PM
I’m always right about my own opinion. You’re entitled to yours.
but yes, I do know what I personally think.
And when I change my opinion, I will.
AnninCA on May 8, 2010 at 12:20 PM
Obama was elected on emotion not common sense. The first black president gets rid of white guilt. He’s so handsome and has such a deep baritone voice! He went to college! Women, blacks and liberals who call themselves independent elected this joker. That and McCain’s ineptness!
Vince on May 8, 2010 at 12:24 PM
Syncresis: the rhetorical device of changing the subject. Thanks for changing the subject.
You failed to tie electing a Republican president to any effect on abortion rights. Stop complaining until you do so.
BuckeyeSam on May 8, 2010 at 12:27 PM
I agree. But the one practical endpoint was to ensure that he’d not appoint someone to the supreme court who would overturn this momumental icon of a decision to most women I know.
This isn’t really about abortion, btw.
It’s about women’s rights to make their own decisions.
You want us to avoid abortion, then play fair.
But to use the law against our rights about our own health?
That simply is unacceptable, even to me, and I’m no longer personally involved in that issue due to my age.
But I still refuse to let the religious right take control over women and their health issues.
I’m serious. This is a huge issue for women voters.
Get a clue. Get moderate on this or else. You’ll lose.
AnninCA on May 8, 2010 at 12:29 PM
The 50% against the pro-lifers, which sort of includes Palin, btw, aren’t going to go for it, folks.
I think I’d back her for president, frankly, if not for this issue.
As she chose?
No thanks.
But I do like her influence on other issues, so I back her generally.
But not as president, and probably not any GOP’er at this point.
I’m not interested in any presidential candidate who courts that small segment of our society.
No, the abortion issue is truly a matter of individualism versus the state.
I oppose those statists who would dictate policy in this arena.
And none of you can reconcile your usual rhetoric. You’d control women’s health issues in this area in a heartbeat.
And for that reason, I do not trust your broad rhetoric.
AnninCA on May 8, 2010 at 12:34 PM
Well they might be convinced now! Are you? It appears that there has been a big effort to control health care!
Vince on May 8, 2010 at 12:38 PM
I think that the liberal appointments is THE biggest reason why the GOP won’t win back the presidency.
The country will reelect Obama. They hope to stop the liberal agenda through congress.
But they hope to stop the far-right and it’s insane takeover of women’s bodies, religion, etc., by making sure they don’t take over the presidency.
That is my prediction.
People aren’t interested in a far-right president.
AnninCA on May 8, 2010 at 12:38 PM
Ann, weren’t you the one that was all for Obamacare?
Vince on May 8, 2010 at 12:41 PM
like he listened to the people during the obamacare boondoggle
dear leader: our own marie antoinette
cmsinaz on May 8, 2010 at 12:54 PM
What are the identity junkies gonna do when states begin to decide that there’s really nothing the feds can do to force them to honor Roe v Wade?
What if they gave a Supreme Court decision and nobody obeyed? Now that’s real popcorn time.
platypus on May 8, 2010 at 1:08 PM
So, uh…how’s that working out for you?
James on May 8, 2010 at 1:28 PM
Ann is more interested in giving her body over to Ezekiel Emmanuel who will dispose of it since she is a net drag on the economy. So she has that going for her.
Inanemergencydial on May 8, 2010 at 3:03 PM
So you hang knives on your Xmas tree? Wow, you must celebrate some interesting holidays at your place :-)
MJBrutus on May 8, 2010 at 4:22 PM
I may regret asking this, but who are all these selfish hos that Ann knows that are so hot for an abortion? Aren’t you older than me, Ann? I thought you were 50ish? I’m 44, and most women our age don’t blather on about worrying about abortion availability. This is a bygone issue for us, whatever or views. I am more a Conservative Libertarian than anything, I guess, and have always thought Roe v Wade was a mess. Like most everything we all discuss here, this should bedealt with at the state level, not federally. BTW, if you do happen to hang w/ a passle of 20-30 somethings, Ann, surely you are old and wise enough to explain personal responsibility and the pill to them.
di butler on May 8, 2010 at 5:48 PM
Well, we can throw that whole argument out the window since ObaMaoCare will take the power of medical choices out of the hands of both the doctor and the patient. Faceless bureaucrats and committees will now determine “best practice” and that determination will depend on how much money is in the federal kitty.
onlineanalyst on May 8, 2010 at 5:57 PM
It may be true that the electorate doesn’t care about religion. But most people don’t realize that Stevens is the only Protestant on the Supreme Court. According to Wikipedia, 51% of the population identifies themselves as non-Catholic Christian. The question that Gallup and others had better be asking is whether the voters are comfortable having a Supreme Court without a Protestant.
My calculator says that the probability of that happening at random is 0.0017 or less than 0.2%.
Would you like to defend your hiring practices against those odds during an EEOC investigation?
And bear in mind that any defense of a 51% majority being excluded from SCOTUS would be equally applicable in excluding women, and much more applicable in defending the exclusion of non-white minorities, Jews, Catholics, and indeed, any minority.
If the Obama team isn’t smart enough to figure this out, the firestorm they will ignite will be well-deserved.
drwilliams on May 8, 2010 at 10:31 PM