I recently posted a poll that some of you were kind enough to participate in. It queried reader's on their thoughts (in response to a blog I posted) regarding whether Chief Justice Roberts might have had bigger strategic thoughts in mind when he signed the majority opinion wrapping up (for now) the Obamacare case. While a statistician might rightly take umbrage at an extrapolation of themes from a sample size of 12, there were some interesting takeaways from the poll.
For example, half of responders thought that, yes, Roberts was up to something. Three believed that he wasn't, that the opinion he presented represented nothing but his actual legal analysis of the situation. Another 3 felt that it didn't matter. I would take that to mean that those individuals felt that, even if Roberts was scheming, his machinations would prove inconsequential. Either that, or they were expressing a negative opinion of the poll itself, but I digress.
Meanwhile, no one answered that they weren't sure, pointing to a very well-educated (or at least unabashedly and gleefully ignorant) readership. The takeaway? It seems that at least some people believe that Roberts was 'up to something' with his opinion. Whether he was hoping to set in motion a conservation revolution, he was looking to preserve the integrity of the court that bears his name, or something else altogether is unclear. However, it is a sign of how people view the role of the court, or at the very least how the court views itself.
At least I think so...stats class is a distant memory at best at this point...If anyone who responded to the poll has any thoughts to add, I would appreciate visits to the comments section below. And please be on the lookout for more polls in the future. It was an interesting exercise for me, as I hope it was for you all.
No comments:
Post a Comment