What % of Amereicans support the filibusters? How many agree with me?

[Mountainman]

The Repubs in Congress repeatedly get up for their 30 minute sessions and talk about the Dems "unprecedented" use of the filibuster to block votes on the judges.

Well, I want them to use the filibuster to block the vote. It is the only means we have to prevent Bush from packing the courts with conservative ideology.

The Repubs want to fight imperialistic wars using the children of the lower classes and middle classes as cannon fader. They want to roll back all progressive gains that were made since FDR was President.

The vision of the Repubs for this country and for the world is one where there is a wealthy imperialist ruling class in America who enjoy a lavish lifestyle while the rest of the billions and billions of people in the world fight wars and live lives as working poor.

The repubs are trying to use the courts to promote that vision.

What percentage of Americans want the Dems to use the filibuster to block the voting on these judges? Does anyone know?

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. The vast majority are completely unaware that this is happening

[w13rd0]

2. The vast majority...

...want extra sprinkles on their whipped topping. Even better if you can make a whipped topping with the sprinkles built in...

[jbfam4]

3. vote on the talkathon

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-11-12-senate-talkathon_x.htm

Vote on the talkathon.........childish waste of time has the most so far.

[nostamj]

11. current results 11AM eastern

The best way to describe the Senate's 'talkathon' is:

46.69%
A childish waste of time
30.06%
A legitimate legislative tactic.
23.27%
A questionable but necessary tool to break a political logjam
Total Votes:4095

[politicat]

22. An hour later, the numbers have changed....

47.38% - childish waste of time
29.77% - A legitimate legislative tactic.
22.85% - A questionable but necessary tool to break a political logjam
Total Votes:4485

Adding those up, it looks like 52.62% are at least a little okay with it.

[Grover]

4. Here's one that is against

It only sets a more dangerous precedent. This will now become the accepted, and expected path for the future. It's not good in any way.

Judges should not be approved based on ideology, only their ability to perform the job. The repubs stopped countless Clinton appointees because they didn't approve of their ideology, which was dead wrong. If it was wrong then, it is wrong now. Part of winning is being able to select judges. Just because we may not agree with the person's viewpoint on some issues should not disqualify them from the position.

[WindRavenX]

6. What about the SC then?

God forbid this happens, but if Bush goes another 4 years, he could fill the SC with right wing lunatics like Scalia that would rule on cases for DECADES. Kiss Roe V Wade goodbye, kiss any chance of an ERA goodbye, kiss gay right cases goodbye.
No, we need to keep the righ wing judges out of the federal courts..

[ibegurpard]

7. Republicans bottled up Clinton's judicial appointments for 8 years

Hoping for a moment like this. It's not just a question of payback. It's an issue of not allowing them to stack the courts with right-wing judicial activists, not ONLY vacancies that are occurring under Bush's watch but ones that should have been filled during Clinton's tenure.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

10. is this true?

I had read that under Clinton that over 350 judges were approved (second to Reagan at like 380) with only 40 some odd hold-overs. And I thought some of them were reappointed.

TheProdigal

[ibegurpard]

15. Read this article.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=703569

[ProdigalJunkMail]

16. thanks...reading now

TheProdigal

[ibegurpard]

17. Apparently, it is Salon Premium content; here is what I wanted

"Republicans denied confirmation to more than one-third of Clinton's nominees for the Court of Appeals, and in many instances the Republican-controlled Senate during the Clinton years refused to even hold hearings on judicial nominees. Yet by effectively blocking four appellate court nominees -- Miguel Estrada (who has now withdrawn), Charles Pickering, Priscilla Owen and Bill Pryor -- the Democrats have put the Republicans into a tizzy, so they're determined to provide Americans with a 30-hour C-SPAN tantrum."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/11/13/senate_rules/index_np.html

[ProdigalJunkMail]

19. thanks for reposting..

I am a Salon subscriber...good reading in many cases...

In my recollection of past administrations that were at odds with the Senate Judiciary Committee (as is DemPres vs RepSenate or RepPres vs. DemSenate) there are always instances, and in some cases many many instances, where judicial appointees never get out of committee. In this case, we have a RepPres and a RepSenate so getting through committee is a no brainer for most. I am concerned that this filibuster action agains four judges could cause a serious serious problem in the future. It starts at four, but what happens when all of a sudden there are forty that are not getting voted on. I am definitely a 'slippery-slope'r on this one. This could backfire in a major way.

TheProdigal

[ibegurpard]

20. And this is PRECISELY why the Republicans have no beef

Democrats were FAR more even-handed with Bush's nominees.

[ieoeja]

18. Only 1 was renominated.

Bush withdrew all of Clinton's nominees immediately upon taking office which I rather expect is the normal course of action from an incoming President. A few months later he renominated one of those he withdrew.

At the start of Clinton's administration his nominees were treated normally. But when he was elected to a second term, Senate Republicans started blocking masses of nominees. With a majority in the Senate, they simply did not schedule a vote for most. Or in other words, they did the exact same thing the Democrats are doing today with one major exception. Where the Republicans allowed approval of just over 60% of Clinton's nominees his last two years in office, the Democrats have allowed approval of 98% of Bush's nominees having approved 165 while filibustering only 4.

One of those four has been nominated to a high court despite zero judicial experience. Furthermore, he has refused to provide requested documentation or answer policy questions in Senate Judicial Committee hearings. Ideology aside, this one guy should not be approved simply for his refusal to cooperate with the Senate.

Personally, I think Pickering is getting a raw deal. The only real complaint I have seen against him is that he went too easy on a cross burner. Given Pickering's long record of support for civil rights for African-Americans, I see no reason to suspect Pickering's judgement in this one case.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

21. i admit, i am woefully uniformed on this

i guess i would really like to see what makes these people unacceptable. what part of their judicial past is so disgusting that they cannot be looked at. i am definitely not saying that i don't believe there is a problem with these four...i just don't know what it is.

TheProdigal

[Mountainman]

12. The future of America is too important to trust to Bush's nominees

You are saying there is an absolute way that judges should be picked and not to care what the results will be. That is conservative thinking in my mind. I do not believe in absolutes. We live in dangerous times. The whole government is in the hands of conservatives and I do not want them to change the culture and laws to fit conservative thinking.

It is too dangerous not to block these judges. They were hand picked to make cultural changes in this country. Conservatives who say that these judges will not make law are hypocrites because that is precisely why they were nominated.

[Loonman]

5. Repubs are being crybabies

They are stuck on 4, while 168 got the greenlight.

[loudnclear]

8. Ooops didn't see your post before I wrote mine.

I believe that the American people do not know much about the 3 women who Bush wants to appoint. I don't believe that Bush knows that much about them. He is just saying what he is told to say, otherwise he wouldn't be doing this. See my post on Americans and the Depression.

[incapsulated]

9. Once again...

The rethugs are trying to create false "outrage" over nothing. 98% of nominees passed. It's all their usual smoke and mirrors.

The Democrats are finally getting smart; stop the nominee's that are in line for the Supreme Court, that's what really matters right now.

Payback's a bitch, huh?

:D

[onecitizen]

13. I hate that I have to say this..........

but I totally agree with you. And the working class(which there are way more of than the elite class) just don't "get it" yet. How low will we go before they admit that this administration hates the working class. They just wanna keep enough of us around to serve them. Let all the others die.

[Yupster]

14. My guess

7 % support.
8 % oppose.
85 % have no clue or interest in learning about it.