Whereas I think it's an utterly awful chart, because it makes no mention whatever of the increases in the size of the judiciary, or timeline when they happened. So the "percentage" side on the left implies the relevance of that, while the "numbers" side on the right, absent context of emptyjudicial seats, is entirely misleading.
Myself, I was amazed the Times would do that (provide such a misleading chart) on the op-ed page, but hardly entirely.
I'm not buying this one, Farber. Granted, the graphic doesn't include all relevant information. And if we learn there's some serious discrepancy between the present and the past, then it is, in fact, misleading. But I think the underlying point is that changing the Senate rules to give absolute power to Palpatine on confirmations really requires more than moderate deviation from absolute parity.
What with the right side of the chart being judges confirmed per year, and not breaking down by appellate or district, I don't think you can do any calculations with tht number and the percentages on the left.
The percentages are still pretty much all you need, though.
But isn't the absolutely best solution to return to real filibusters? This way no party will be able to keep bringing pork home, and the public pressure on both would be to resolve the matter. If the majority gets too cocky, the minority goes for the matts, but otherwise, the minority senators would have to be willing to give up on sleep and food for a few hours, which should make filibusters rare.
Whereas I think it's an utterly awful chart, because it makes no mention whatever of the increases in the size of the judiciary, or timeline when they happened. So the "percentage" side on the left implies the relevance of that, while the "numbers" side on the right, absent context of emptyjudicial seats, is entirely misleading.
Myself, I was amazed the Times would do that (provide such a misleading chart) on the op-ed page, but hardly entirely.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-19-05 4:08 PM
Come on -- the raw numbers side is dumb, but what's wrong with the percentage side?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-19-05 6:59 PM
I don't rate a 50% completely misleading/50% adequate rating as even 50% good, I'm afraid. I expect far better from the Times.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-19-05 9:09 PM
I'm not buying this one, Farber. Granted, the graphic doesn't include all relevant information. And if we learn there's some serious discrepancy between the present and the past, then it is, in fact, misleading. But I think the underlying point is that changing the Senate rules
to give absolute power to Palpatineon confirmations really requires more than moderate deviation from absolute parity.Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 05-19-05 9:18 PM
I am impressed both by your high standards and your apparently unquenchable optimism.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-19-05 9:19 PM
That was to GF, rather than FL.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-19-05 9:20 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 05-19-05 9:22 PM
I think we can't extrapolate because we don't know how many seats remained vacant.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-19-05 9:24 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 05-19-05 9:30 PM
Never mind. There are other problems. I think 4 still stands, though.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 05-19-05 9:34 PM
What with the right side of the chart being judges confirmed per year, and not breaking down by appellate or district, I don't think you can do any calculations with tht number and the percentages on the left.
The percentages are still pretty much all you need, though.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-19-05 9:38 PM
Yes, hence the "almost." That problem I saw, at least.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 05-19-05 9:41 PM
But isn't the absolutely best solution to return to real filibusters? This way no party will be able to keep bringing pork home, and the public pressure on both would be to resolve the matter. If the majority gets too cocky, the minority goes for the matts, but otherwise, the minority senators would have to be willing to give up on sleep and food for a few hours, which should make filibusters rare.
Posted by Joe | Link to this comment | 05-20-05 7:22 PM