It\’s Easy To Be Smart If You Make It Up As You Go
September 10th, 2008 by 
Kevin
It seems like only just the other day (actually it was!) that I was reading an article debunking the frequently cited myth that liberals are smarter than conservatives.
Liberals wish. Democrats like to think that voters who sympathize with their views are smarter than those who vote Republican. But a 2007 Pew survey found that the knowledge level of viewers of the right-wing, blustery \”The O\’Reilly Factor\” and the left-wing, snarky \”The Daily Show\” is comparable, with about 54 percent of the shows\’ politicized viewers scoring in the \”high knowledge\” category.
Ok fair enough, we\’re equally smart, we just differ in opinion. I can live with that. Oh happy world, what a wonderfully balanced utopia we live in
[That screeching sound you hear is reality interjecting itself.]
Wait…what\’s this?
While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.
Um, what?? Seriously? Only 29% of Obama\’s supporters believe the Supreme Court should rule based upon the Constitution??? And a full 49% believe they should just pull their opinion out of their ass??? Really!???
[Checks calendar and notices today is in fact not April 1st.]
Wow.
I\’m a little bewildered. I\’m not sure what angle to approach this from. Because this is a concept I\’m pretty sure was covered in my elementary school social studies/civics classes….if not then, certainly by Junior High. How could only a small number know that a SCOTUS justic rules by the Constitution? Otherwise how could a reasonable adult, most of whom probably tied their own shoes that morning, admit to a pollster, they are a complete and utter dumbass??
[Crossposted at True North]
Email This Post
| 
Print This Post
Posted in SCOTUS, True North | 
51 Comments »
September 12th, 2008 at 11:16 am
“Tom has presented a case – where’s Kevin’s and yours? Tom has referenced specific cases and made his points clearly…” — Eddie
Eddie, Kevin has already answered to the specifics. My point would be that two specific cases, out of 200+ years of jurisprudence, cannot disprove the general rule, and not even a preponderance of cases in which the rule was not followed do not deny the /desirability/ of that general rule. Call them “platitudes” if you want, but that is the subject of the discussion. If you don’t want to talk about such lofty ideas, don’t.
“Need I remind Kevin and you that you don’t really subscribe to the Constitution’s superiority…”
No, you need not. That is simply your opinion and has little bearing on this discussion.