A modest proposal regarding FR polls

shameless vanity posting | 12-08-04 | El Inquistador

[inquest]

OK, got my flamesuit on here...

The last couple of polls on FR have been questions regarding issues which, I'd wager, most Freepers had little knowledge of at the time the question was asked. There was a poll as to who should be the next chairman of Senate Judiciary. Everybody of course knew about Arlen and his rather presumptive remarks directed at the President, but I don't think a lot of people were terribly familiar with the credentials of the other two senators who were named in the poll.

Likewise with the most recent poll, I doubt whether most Freepers knew at the time that Mr. Gonzales was a member of La Raza or that as a judge on the Texas supreme court, voted to "rule" that a minor doesn't have to obtain her parents' consent to obtain an abortion. I have a very strong feeling that if these facts had been known beforehand, the numbers would look starkly different from the way they currently do. Indeed, over time, the percentage in his favor has been steadily dropping.

Therefore I have this simple proposal for future polls: When a poll question is posted, I recommend to have it link to a thread discussing the question, and to not accept any votes for 24 hours, so that Freepers have the opportunity to hear the different arguments and cast an informed vote. Comments?

[William Terrell]

Here's the usual process.

FR denizen notices an online poll while surfing.

He or she posts an article on FR usually saying "Freep this Poll!". The content of the article is usually a repeat of the title.

Others visit the article and a discussion ensues.

99% of the polls are self explanatory, so most of the discussion goes like this, "Ok, I voted!"

Here is a random sample of the poll questions:

-Do you think the U.S. is doing enough to secure its borders.
-Do you think the UCC's television commercial about hospitality is controversial.
-It's an AOL poll, asking if Iraq is headed in the right direction.
-Should states limit pain and suffering awards in medical-malpractice suits?
-Do you agree with the results of the Presidential Election?
-Should Christine Gregoire request a hand recount in the governor’s race?
-Should the U.N. should decide on wars
-Which do you think is the most likely reason for Kerry's election loss?
-Should Bush grant amnesty to illegal aliens?
-Do you agree with Target's decision to ban all charitable solicitations on its property?
-Today, who is the most bitter and disappointed journalist?
-Do you think it's time for the Bush administration to tell Kofi Annan to stop meddling?
-What do you think of columnist Ann Coulter?

How much discussion is necessary for someone to understand the question posed by these polls?

Try this. Go to the current postings page and enter "freep this poll" into the search box and click Search. Notice how many replys and how many views there are.

Nobody needs to do anything. The process takes care of itself.

[rightwingreligiousfanatic]

But if you don't respond to the polls you'll get on the Mods double secret probation list..... Always respond to the polls.... And answer the right way, too, or you'll be banned!

Just kidding. If you don't like the polls don't respond to them.... I rarely do.

[Catholic and Conservative]

I think we are talking about two different types of polls. You are talking about polls external to FreeRepublic.com. For those, I'd agree, nothing needs to be done. But I was talking about the polls that show up on the FR sidebar, such as the current one, "Are you happy with President Bush's choice of Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General?" I would like to have an official thread for this poll. It is going to take more than just a couple of minutes of searching on Google for it to be clear to me whether Gonzales adhered closely to legislative intent in the parental notification cases. Some discussion on FR might make it easier to sort out the facts.

No doubt the discussion is already here on FR, in several places, but it seems to me having an official FR discussion thread for each FR poll would be a logical place for Freepers to present their arguments for their point of view on the subject of the poll, as well as being a logical place to discuss the poll results.

[inquest]

You made a wise choice to cut and run, because you haven't backed up squat. I made the obvious statement at #32 that I nowhere claimed (here or on any other thread) that other people's disagreement with my opinion was in itself evidence of their unawareness of the facts I displayed. You "rebutted" by pointing out that I had an opinion. That doesn't even meet the minimal standard for a logical counterargument.

[inquest]

So you're taking one Texas case in which Gonzales strictly construed the existing Texas legislation at to one particular minor as evidence that he's pro-abortion?

He didn't "strictly" construe it; he very broadly construed it. The majority said that because the lower court failed to find that the girl was not qualified to receive a judicial waiver from parental notification, the court should have assumed that she was qualified. They made this ruling despite the fact that the statute says, "If the court finds that the minor is mature and sufficiently well informed" or other pertinent criteria, the court shall grant a waiver. It doesn't say that the court shall grant a waiver if it fails to specifically state that she hasn't met the criteria.

As Priscilla Owen very appropriately noted, writing for the dissent, that ruling overturns over half a century of precedent, which requires that facts either expressly found or otherwise acted upon by a lower court should not be second-guessed by a higher court without solid evidence from the record warranting the finding. You can read more about it here.

I've come across a lot of statements defending Gonzales for having allegedly "put his personal preferences aside", but I've seen no one attempt to make any kind of actual legal defense of the majority ruling that he supported.

[inquest]

It is going to take more than just a couple of minutes of searching on Google for it to be clear to me whether Gonzales adhered closely to legislative intent in the parental notification cases.

Ain't that the truth. Google the subject and all you get is one page after another presenting the same narrow facts which don't elucidate the issue, most of which simply re-quote the same source (usually CNN or someone like that). But you may find my link at #45 helpful.

[Dog Gone]

I don't want to revisit the legal issues on that case for at least the tenth time on this forum. It's been done, and you can archive search it if you'd like.

Suffice it to say that Gonzales was the person in the Bush Administration who vetted all his judicial nominees in his first term, and Priscilla Owen was one that he approved.

She's currently one of the ten being filibustered. If Gonzales is pro-abortion, why has he not allowed one that I know of to be appointed?

[inquest]

I don't want to revisit the legal issues on that case for at least the tenth time on this forum.

Whether you agree with the majority ruling in that case or not, you can't claim that they were "strictly construing" the statute under examination.

Suffice it to say that Gonzales was the person in the Bush Administration who vetted all his judicial nominees in his first term, and Priscilla Owen was one that he approved.

Bush and Gonzales knew his nominees would be filibustered. Why else did Bush not lift a finger to get his nominees approved? He never made it an issue with the Dems. Those nominations were all for show, to get conservatives to support him.