Redstate

Actually quite a few objections are lodged here:

Before we get to deep into it, take note that it's got a 7 point advantage for Democrats over Republicans, and there are 4% more respondents who are "Independent" than Republican. The breakdown in the Post poll is 35% Democrat - 32% Independent - 28% Republican and 5% "Other". Interesting numbers given that the 2004 elections, party ID was evenly split at 37% each. That means overall, Republicans were undersampled (in terms of people who actually vote) by 9%.

There are many more statistics on the biased sample at the above link.

although I think they are pretty general and not specific to either party.  But can you blame the media for portraying this issue in a religious and moral light when the republicans are have "filibuster against people of faith" weekends?  Republicans are the ones who explicitly tied these issues together.  And democrats aren't attacking the faith of the judges, just the idea that that faith should influence their rulings.  

I'm not attacking you for being right handed, just for doing all of your work with your right hand.

"The Constitution requires a majority vote for approval of a President's judicial nominees..."

wasn't asked because its not correct.

The constitution doesn't specify in any way what the process of confirming judicial nominees is: its says, "Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

It does not specify how that advice and consent shall be given.  That decision is completely up to the senate itself.  The senate has the right to change the rules, but pretending its the "constitutional option" is just spin.

has some errors in it.

There is no poll question that asks, "The Constitution requires a majority vote for approval of a President's judicial nominees, but the Democrats, through use of the filibuster, are requiring a two-thirds vote.

1) The Constitution does not require a vote on a Presidential nominee.  The Senate's role is one of 'advise and consent'.  How they decide to advise and consent is up to the Senate.  In Section 2, Article II it says, "And by

and with the advice and consent of the Senate he shall appoint ambassadors, judges of

the Supreme Court and all other officers of the United States."

2) Stopping a filibuster requires a 3/5ths majority not a 2/3rds majority.

which certain questions are going to precede or follow other questions by the nature of it being a poll.  If (operative word) there is a link between the religious questions and the judicial nominee questions, then it is because the media has decided that that is what the issue surrounding the nominees is, and because of the way the republicans have been spinning the filibuster and faith, I think you would find that most people view it that way as well, if they view it at all.  (The people like me, and I presume you, who view this as a  constitutional and senate procedure issue are in the minority)

To your last sentence; with that said, I view this almost entirely as a Senate procedural issue (except for the bit about religious tests).

http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/5364574.html

Something must be wrong: Nuke the Filibuster.

These are confusing days in Washington. Born-again conservative Christians who strongly want to see President Bush's judicial nominees voted on are leading the charge against the Senate filibuster, and liberal Democrats are born-again believers in that reactionary, obstructionist legislative tactic. Practically every big-name liberal senator you can think of derided the filibuster a decade ago but now sees the error of his or her ways and will go to amusing lengths to try to convince you that the change of heart is explained by something deeper than the mere difference between being in the majority and being in the minority.

At the risk of seeming dull or unfashionable for not getting our own intellectual makeover, we still think judicial candidates nominated by a president deserve an up-or-down vote in the Senate. We hardly see eye to eye with the far right on social issues, and we oppose some of these judicial nominees, but we urge Republican leaders to press ahead with their threat to nuke the filibuster. The so-called nuclear option entails a finding by a straight majority that filibusters are inappropriate in judicial confirmation battles.

It goes on to propose eliminating the filibuster altogether.

It was supposed to be a comment on the "smell test" above.

So let's see if I can get this straight:

The L.A. Times' position is has now taken Hendrick Hertzberg's ideas one step further -- all the way into and through the nuclear option, beyond the button press.  Hertzberg wrote that the Democrats should protest the changing of the rules ("raise holy hell" was his term) on this particular issue, at this particular point in time, but that when they regain the majority they should turn around and eliminate it everywhere because its use has historically been an "anti-democratic" obstructionist tactic  wielded to thwart the efforts of progressives.  Hertzberg also posited, with great fanfare, the idea that the current Democrat minority in the Senate (head count) really represent a larger absolute number of constituents -- and therefore they are the true voice of the majority of the population, the Senate be damned because it's not a truly representative body, depending on how you cook up the numbers and the assumptions you make.  And we now have a Washington Post poll that can be used to support both of those positions, depending on how impolitic or bold you are.

So the New Yorker wants the filibuster gone, but just not right now, and the L.A. Times says:  "Go ahead.  Make my day."  Meanwhile the MSM is saying the public is against us -- using data from Question #36 of a supercallifragilistic new poll with some interesting wording.  And the rest of us are learning from the Star Tribune just how counterintuitive and perverse and tit-for-tat these situations can become.  Hmmm.  Well, where's the leadership on this?  We don't really know for sure.  Frist is waffling because he's not as skilled a parliamentarian or as tenacious a leader as Lott was.  Or maybe he's just wary of the midterm elections in a President's 2nd term and what it can do to the majority party.  Biden suggests compromise.  Reid dangles offers, as long as certain nuclear options are taken completely off the table, because the Supreme Court battles are yet to come, and the Democrats desparately want that filibuster around for those.  Frist rejects Reid's offer.  Nukes stay on the table.  Knight takes pawn, maybe.  But nobody is really 100%sure  yet.  Oh, and Nan Aron is busy spreading mindrot to middle-school kids about what the Constitution says about Checks and Balanz.

Even Harry Reid's supporters are pulling their hair out, and calling him on the phone to scream "Say What?"  Got confusion?

Well, the cynic in me says that right now we still live in a universe of situational ethics, so you're right to be confused.  If we go through with it, and I've said in the past we should, here's hoping that the Great Brains of this party have been right all this time when they've peered into their long-term demographic crystal balls and predicted a sustainable Republican majority.  And we'd better prepare to fight the backlash which is sure to ensue.  And we'd better win that fight.  And then we'd better carry it all the way through and get Roe V. Wade overturned, or this whole thing will have been a waste of time.  More: if we keep the filibuster around now, the Democrats are almost lead-pipe cinch, 200% sure, absolutely beyond the shadow of a doubt - guaranteed to use it against a conservative supreme court nominee they don't like.  Right?  Is that the assumption we're going on here?  But is anyone worried that the L.A. Times now seems to be on our side?  

Here's my thinking:  the only reason the Democrats are willing to offer compromises like the ones that Biden and Reid are throwing out there right now is because they know that Question #36 was a rigged question, the poll is as full of holes as an aerogel, and it won't stand up in the long term.  They need that judicial filibuster right now, and they need it bad.  And they have a pretty good idea that they're not going to get back the Senate any time soon.

The original, cited story says that the GOP proposal would "prevent the use of a filibuster in order to block Bush appointees to the federal bench."  That's simply untrue.  The GOP's proposed change is to require merely a simple majority for cloture (cutting off debate--including a filibuster) instead of having to come up with 61 votes out of 100 to do so.  That's NOT the same thing as, effectively, "outlawing" the use of the filibuster to block votes on judicial nominations, even though the effect may be the same.  All Democrats need to do is to convince 6 Republicans to vote with them on an issue and the use of the filibuster could continue.  If a nominee is THAT bad, it shouldn't be hard to convince that many of their opponents to vote with them to block an up or down vote.  What the new rule DOES stop, however, is blocking otherwise-qualified nominees from receiving an up or down vote when it's apparent to Democrats that the nominee WILL receive a majority of votes and be "confirmed" to the bench.  In short, the filibuster can no longer be used for purely partisan purposes to "show the President who's really in charge, which seems to be the Democrats' sole motivation these days."

I have no problem with judges having faith in a religion or even that the faith will inevitably influence their interpretation of the law.  I just have a problem with any judge who wants to bring organized religion into situations where the public cannot easily avoid it if they choose to

So for example, I have no problem with a judge who views abortion as immoral and is able to legitimately interpret the law that way.  If there is a difference of opinion as to whether the judges ruling is legitimate then the law needs to be clarified by the legislature. (and of course we have appeals, etc...)

But things like forced prayer in shool or ten commandments in a courthouse I do object to.    

Ken Mehlman at the RNC has slightly different results in a poll they conducted.

'cause Moses is hauling those tablets around in a frescoe on the Supreme Court building.

But about the poll: I'd usually say disregard them at your peril. But to ask a question like this as No. 36 in a poll that must've taken close to 45 minutes to complete (I don't see how they ever made their sample), framed with an anti-Republican context, on an issue about which non-committed-partisans know next to nothing, in a random-adult survey that undersampled Republicans, is ridiculous.

Beyond that, we just had an election. We won't have another one for 18 months. If the Democrats want to run on a Senate rule change enacted a year and a half earlier, I say let's just concede the issue to them and get it over with. Hastert leaving the drug-bill vote open for 3 hours didn't seem to make a lasting impression and was (in my book) a more egregious offense.