If the democratic party is going to fight to resist a string of Bush judicial nominations, we need a reason to be doing so. What would be a good democratic position about judicial nominations that would justify tactics like the filibuster and help push the Bush team to a more acceptable type of judge? What are our minimum standards for judges that could gain a consensus among the democratic congressmen?

That's just the point... There IS a reason for the filibuster. The problem is that many don't see it as a problem. I feel that Estrada, and every other nominee for the courts should be well scrutinized before being given such power over our lives. The Senators have a constitutional duty to review each in a consistant manner and I applaud the party for seeing that the job will be done.

I think its good that the party is showing a little bit of back-bone, and not allowing appointments to judicial seats just because "Bush says so". The party needs to take its own stands, and not simply roll over because the president is popular at the moment. In the long run, I think we'll look better for having stuck to our guns and pushed for our core values.

I have a reason We can't have ultra conservative judges in a moderate country. We don't need judges who think dancing is a sin or abortion should be outlawed. The country needs a few moderate judges who agree with the majority but have their own intelligent opinions.

Stefan and RU I agree with you that this nomination should be blocked by our party with the tools at our disposal. But politically, our party has had a great problem defining its path ahead. This puts us too often in the position of reacting to the position of the other side instead of forging ahead with ours.

A vision in 2000 like that of 1992 and we would still have a democratic president.

I think we have not made our case well in the case of judicial nominations. We should not block republican nominations in a blanket method, but we need to create some type of standards for who should be blocked and why.

PLank #1. Candidates must reasonably divulge their legal opinions when these opinions are solicited during the advise and consent sessions with the Senate.

Fair? Not clear enough? Unfair?