« A Tale of Two Ideologies | Main | Terri Schiavo's Final Days »

Majority of Voters Want Vote on Judicial Nominees

The MSM bombards us with polls but they are sure to ignore this one:

Majority of Voters Want Up-Or-Down Vote on Judicial Nominees, Poll Shows

(CNSNews.com) - A new poll shows an "overwhelming majority" of Americans favor an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate on judicial nominees.

The survey, conducted by the Judicial Confirmation Network, concluded that 67 percent of voters agree that politics should be taken out of the courts and out of the confirmation process.

"It is abundantly clear that the American people are tired of the partisan, political maneuvering and the unwarranted character assassinations against qualified candidates for the federal bench," said Wendy Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, in a press release.

Eighty-two percent of voters agree that "if a nominee for any federal judgeship is well-qualified, he or she deserves an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate," the poll found.

The only thing saving Democrats from themselves is the complete ineptitude of congressional Republicans. If the Republicans had any sense, they would listen to me and give the Democrats enough rope to hang themselves.

The Dems are getting off easy on this one.

Comments (14)

I agree with this poll. <br... (Below threshold)

I agree with this poll.
I wonder if the numbers would be the same if the poll had been taken 10 years ago.
I'm a registered Republican,(who hates a double standard), if it was good for us...Blue Slips...it's good for them.
I would like our philosophy of small govt to prevail, without the self inflicted wounds. We are stronger when we win and can look at ourselves in the mirror the next morning.

Only issue I have with this... (Below threshold)

Only issue I have with this is that I've never heard of the folks who sponored the poll. I'm always a little leery of polls from special interest groups that match their goals. On the other hand, their web page ( http://judicialnetwork.org/ ) does list the actual questions from the poll & their methodology.

Paul. I would wholeheartedl... (Below threshold)

Paul. I would wholeheartedly agree with the strategy you outlined in your previosu post in this subject-- however, the current Rule does not require any Senator to take the floor to speak at all. All that is required is that 41 Senators notify the Senate leadership that they "intend to filibuster." Thereafter, until notified otherwise, no vote on the issue identified in the notice may take place, although other Senate business may go forward. The 41 can hide in their offices and plot their next bomb toss.

While I share the prevailing sentiment born of current circumstances, when it comes to the institutional rules one must always be mindful of the old saying, "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." Bear in mind that some day (eventually, hopefully not in my lifetime), the Democrats will regain control of either the White House or the Senate, and the rules we ardently support now will be used against us.

Both the Democrats and Republican realized this back in 1975, when the original 67 vote cloture requirement was reduced to 60. At that time, the change was done as a compromise that has lasted for a generation.

Now that I've injected some historical perspective, I say "screw it, let's step on their necks!"

Posted by: wavemaker at March 16, 2005 03:40 PM


Cybrludite the media never... (Below threshold)

Cybrludite the media never cares about the qualifications of the sources when it is a story that helps the left.


Wavemaker, cool link, I'm reading, but my instinct is to say "Ok change THAT rule."

- The Majority can override... (Below threshold)

- The Majority can override thr compromise rule and they should stop dicking around and do it... the sooner the Dems make the fatal move to obstruct all Senate business the sooner they will hang themselves for good......What the hell are the Repubs waiting for?

All nominees deserve an up/... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

All nominees deserve an up/down vote in the senate, if they make it out of the judicial committee.

What bothers me right now is that senate democrats keep saying the previously nominated judges were rejected-when in fact the Dems just didn't permit a vote on it-that isn't a rejection, and they need to stop being so dishonest about it.

The dems are about ready to shoot another bullet into their heads, if they think stonewalling is what the people want.

You realize, of course, tha... (Below threshold)

You realize, of course, that this is a phony poll released by a conservative front group, right?

I'd believe this about as much as the "second hand smoke is harmless" studies funded by RJ Reynolds.

Paul,That's what s... (Below threshold)


That's what seperates us from them, now isn't it? Snark aside, the methodology listed on their site looks solid. (At least to someone who had an Intro To Statistics class some 13 years ago in college) The only info missing is the day of the week & time the calls were made.

Here's the thing: it only t... (Below threshold)

Here's the thing: it only takes a simple majority to change Senate rules, right? So, all this blather about "just wait till the Dems get back into power" is pure poppycock. "Going nuclear" now has exactly zero effect on what happens then -- in a hypothetical Dem-controlled Senate, they could drop the cloture rule just as fast as "we" could. I wish people would stop with this particular bit of smoke and mirrors and just get their jobs done already.

I agree with James, and go ... (Below threshold)

I agree with James, and go a little further: how many Democratic President's appointments have a Republican MINORITY filibustered?

Zero is a good first approximation. So, if cloture is reduced to 51, or 1 for that matter, it won't make any difference in the dark future of a Dem Pres and Senate.

Gary, James and Paul ---</p... (Below threshold)

Gary, James and Paul ---

What did I say???

"Now that I've injected some historical perspective, I say'screw it, let's step on their necks!'"

But Gary, as Sen. Frist told the Federalist Society in a recent speech, no minority of either party ever filibustered a judicial nominee, ever --- R or D. (link omitted) That is both what makes you guys lick your chops at the prospect of a confrontation, but sets a precedent that suggests that circumspection is warranted. The Institution is there for more than our amusement. Call me a fan of Statesmanship. Oh. I guess that's not on the table any more.

OK, step on their necks!!!!!!!

Oh gosh, an advocacy poll l... (Below threshold)

Oh gosh, an advocacy poll like this makes it a little embarrassing to support the legitimate premise that nominees should get votes. Who wouldn't agree that "if a nominee for any federal judgeship is well-qualified, he or she deserves an up or down vote." Well duh, but of course "well-qualified" is not defined and becomes a subjective term in the minds of responders. This is propaganda which doesn't add anything of value.

I'd believe this about a... (Below threshold)

I'd believe this about as much as the "second hand smoke is harmless" studies funded by RJ Reynolds.

We already know what you think, Smithers.

Actually, this poll is pret... (Below threshold)
manuel miranda:

Actually, this poll is pretty solid because of the samples and because they restricted it to registered voters. Witt Aires is a fairly well respected pollster. But the truth is that it confirms all other polling since the GOP first polled on judges after the rejection in 2002 of Chas. Pickering. This one numbers that are only slightly higher than past polling...but that can likely be explained by the wider awareness of the issue. And of course the polling that mattered was the senate elections in 2002 and 2004 where this issue played a large role in the "society renewal" and "moral issues" voter. The problem has not been popular support, the problem has been GOP senators who were not all on the same page. That has changed.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy