Polling Nonsense

 

Pollsters take samples of opinions on a variety of subjects.  Some seek the views of respondents as to personal preferences on food choices (what is your favorite ketchup brand?) while the same people may be asked their views on public policy.  The survey results based on the answers of a few hundred up to a thousand are then extrapolated and publicized to reflect “what Americans think”.

Unfortunately, while knowing the personal taste preferences of Americans  is valuable information for the food industry – people do know their tastebuds- there is usually little merit in recording the opinions of Americans about issues about which they are likely to know nothing.  Their uneducated views are nonsense. 

Take polling results on the public’s view of the recently approved “American Rescue Plan” (promoted by Democrats as Covid-19 relief):  75% approve, 18% do not.  Even more than 60% of Republicans like it.

But why?  How many know that of the $1.9 trillion to be spent, less than 10% is aimed at fighting the pandemic?  The rest is devoted to funding projects on the Left’s wish list, such as more money for abortion, a family leave policy for federal workers and Obamacare.

Few could have known.  And that’s not the fault of the respondents.  After all, how many members of Congress had actually read the 100,000 word bill before voting on it?  And knowing what they were voting on was supposed to be their job!

[It was déjà vu.  Remember 2009 when Nancy Pelowi said Congress needed to vote for Obamacare to find out what was in it?  Give the devil her due – she’s done it again!]

Bluntly, the public’s support can only be based on the publicity for the “Rescue Plan”.  Who can oppose that?  And, of course, the liberal media focused on the 7% that actually was directed toward alleviating and fighting Covid-19.

The truth of the matter is that the public doesn’t pay attention to the details of public policy – nor does it care to.  Americans would rather focus on their personal lives and interests.  Anyway, the people’s representatives are elected to office to deal with affairs of state (formally, America’s government is a republic, not a “democracy”).

So, for most Americans viewing the doings of government, their attention span is brief and their knowledge is superficial.

Judgments are based on labels.   Again, as an illustration:  Covid Relief, Rescue Plan.  Sounds good, so it must be, right?

Or, on a broader note, liberals have increasingly chosen to self-identify their leftist policies as “progressive”.  Who opposes progress?  Smart politics but false labeling (unless society’s betterment is based on increased taxes, reduction of individual liberty and PC policies).

Note:  Considering the impact of favorably labeling on public opinion, it is baffling to The Sensible Conservative that such stalwarts of conservative orthodoxy as Fox News use “progressive” when referring to foes on the Left.

Did President Trump Escape Conviction Due to a “Legal Technicality”?

 

Leave aside the thought that conviction of Donald Trump by 67 U.S. Senators in his impeachment was a political impossibility.  As a legal matter, did the case against him fail due to a legal technicality?

Democrats and their media supporters, in the wake of the verdict, lambasted the 43 GOP votes for acquittal as cowards relying on a “technicality”.

As commonly used by those opposed to a verdict of a judge or jury, the expression is meant to convey that a court ruling thwarted justice.

Yet, as any lawyer should know, and Congressional Democratic ranks are full of them, there are legal technicalities… and there are technicalities.

In a criminal context, justice, in its most basic form, means that right occurs when the guilty receive what is deserved and the innocent are freed.

But justice is a system which should operate efficiently and fairly.  Thus, law and court rules require, for instance, that allegations of criminal conduct be filed in a timely manner.  If not, what is termed a statute of limitations can bar prosecution (except, usually for murder).  The defendant has the right to a “speedy trial”.  Is that justice?  The accused does not face it.  Is it fair?  Perhaps.  Is that a technicality?  In the sense that justice was not done either way?  Of course.  But does that render the disposition illegitimate?  No.

The pursuit of justice occurs within a system which sets both means and ends.  Yes, justice is the appropriate end, but how is it reached?  If torture of a suspect would produce a truthful confession would not justice result?  But is there more than justice to be considered?

So how about another “technicality” relevant to the impeachment of Donald Trump?

Jurisdiction.  Courts have authority to handle matters within their purview.  Thus a Maryland court has authority (jurisdiction) to resolve cases in that state but not Virginia, for instance.  Or a court whose authority is limited to handling criminal misdemeanors is barred from hearing felony cases.  It lacks jurisdiction to do so.  More” technicalities” to be sure but they are integral to your system of justice.  And they certainly make sense.

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office…” states the U.S. Constitution.

Before determining guilt or innocence, however, jurisdiction must be established.  Does removal mean the subject must be in office when the judgment is made?  A technicality?  No doubt. 

Language can be subject to varying interpretations (as every lawyer also knows), but to dismiss jurisdiction as a technicality which should be ignored  (in the interest of “justice”) is disingenuous – no, disgraceful!