Screaming Penguin - Source Does Matter

OK, I know back in the elections it seemed I was a huge supporter of Bushes, but keep in mind I was more of a hater of Kerry. Also, I am definitely a supporter of stem cell research, and definitely anti-theocracy. Anyways, with that said, there are a couple of flaws with your arguments and I just want to try to keep everything honest.

1. The current process for overriding a filibuster is contrary to the Constitution, no matter who is doing it. The Constitution is very specific on what it requires a supramajority for, and ending a filibuster is not one of them. Secondly, I saw some statistics the other day - Dems have blocked almost 47% of Bush's nominations. The next closest was around 22% blocks for JFK's nominations. Also, a filibuster IMHO is completely contrary to democracy. A filibuster allows the will of a minority to override the will of a majority using a procedural rule. Plain and simple. But, with that said-

2. A Presidential veto is NOT a minority override as you were equating. The fact is that the President was popularly elected by the majority of the population and so therefore has the power to act on behalf of that majority. Granted, I highly doubt that the majority of folks who elected him support the stem cell veto, but that is how the system works. This is the checks and balances put in place by the Constitution.
3. I do hope that the senate and house override Bush's god-inspired veto as is permitted within the Constitution. Would serve him right. Again, checks and balances.
4. Finally, and this will probably get me in trouble, I think the President is only banning federal funding of this type of stem cell research, correct? If I'm wrong, I apologize. But if this is correct, then it should be vetoed along with a whole bunch of other things. Not because of godly morals and such, but because THIS AIN'T THE JOB OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! No where in the Constitution does it say feds can take tax money and funnel it into research which may or may not get anything. The same for almost every other program, save for the few defined in the constitution - (defense, interstate commerce regulation, federal law enforcement, etc.). But that is just the smaller government is better government in me.

Oh, and yes, I do agree that their killing young humans argument is total and utter bullshit.

break down of judicial appointments, Truman - GWB

OK. Well, I found the list, but unfortunately the source isn't cited. But hey, if it is on the internet, it must be true, right?

The following list shows the percentages of presidential appellate court nominees who were eventually confirmed by the Senate:

Harry Truman 100%
Dwight Eisenhower 92.3%
John Kennedy 77.3%
Lyndon Johnson 96.2%
Richard Nixon 87%
Gerald Ford 81.8%
Jimmy Carter 100%
Ronald Reagan 95%
G.H.W. Bush 95.7%
Bill Clinton 86.4%
George Bush 53.1%

Now that I re-read this, I don't think that statistics are quite up to what it was hoping to show, or at least there is a lot of room for interpretation. Anyways, I'll concede this one but stand on my others until I can be shown otherwise.

I disagree sir Heimann. The entire nature of the Senate is that the minority gets a voice. The two from every state, not just mob rules, so on.

The filibuster is important to that end and historically its been used just as much by each party (while I think the filibuster is essential and you do not - my point was the silliness of saying you are against one minute and then for it the next).

And as to the veto being a minority override, that was not my assertion, it came from linked NPR audio, but I do agree with it. Thats exactly what it is, the entire Congress says - here is the law - the President is then in the miniorty and say nope its out (and for the record I agree with the power of veto and think it is also important).

As to the voting records I get completely different numbers that you when I search:

These fun statistics are from the American Enterprise Institute. :

Judicial Nominations
Percent of nominees confirmed

Carter: 93.1%
Reagan: 96.1%
Bush I: 78.1%
Clinton: 87.9%
Bush II: 96.6%

Now I have no idea if these numbers are a reality either. DalyTHoughts seems to have the most info on it and they assert that there has been obstructionism yet by their own notes there is an overall trend and several major factors that skew the GWB numbers downward (Clinton appointees that Bush recalled, DeLay keeping Congress out of session leading to a rule that automatically revoked nominees, and a host of a thousand other factors).
One of the posters on DalyThoughts has some nice updated graphs - MurdocOnline judicial nominees graphs. They also point to GWB getting the shortest stick but they dont really point to what amounts to a major statistical change when the overall trend is also considered.

ugh, I have no clue what all of this crap is about.... even after reading it!