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.
Come on -- the raw numbers side is dumb, but what's wrong with the percentage side?
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.
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.
I am impressed both by your high standards and your apparently unquenchable optimism.
I think we can't extrapolate because we don't know how many seats remained vacant.
Never mind. There are other problems. I think 4 still stands, though.
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.
Yes, hence the "almost." That problem I saw, at least.
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.