after this Schiavo fiasco...I think the people will WANT the Dems to block

[Sperk]

Smirky's judges. They have seen for themselves what extremists these people are.

[LuminousX]

1. 80% of the people agree with the current judges decisions

So why would we want to change the types of judges listening to these cases.

I have to say, through all of this, I am pretty impressed with the judges all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Again, I look at the USSC and suspect that after Gore v. Bush, they want to appear as apolitical as possible, which works against the Bush Agenda. Of course Scalia will do whatever vile thing he can to push his shitty personal agenda, but as a whole the SC has attempted to regain some of its 'neutrality.' It will take clearing the bench to really regain it, but at least they don't play these GOP games.

[tubbacheez]

2. True enough. That said, I still worry about...

... the 51% of America that can be so easily manipulated by the media.

[meegbear]

3. She's now the new litmus test for judges

[Zenlitened]

6. And when accused of having a 'litmus test'...

... our Dem leaders should say YOU BET we have a litmus test! A federal judge MUST put the laws of the United States ahead of personal feelings. THAT'S the litmus test. If you can't meet that test, you are not qualified to be a federal judge.



(edit spelling)

[Inland]

4. "Republicans say judges like Greer are terrorists. They

are nominating people who will do as they say, not follow the law. We won't support them. We support independent judges who follow the law." How's that?

[Zenlitened]

5. I hope so. It will be up to the Dems to make the connection clear.

They have to say it very plainly: The judges in this case put the law first.

That's what good judges do -- and THAT'S the first requirement for being appointed to the federal bench.

Any nominee who does not meet that requirement simply is not qualified for the job.