Powerman has a point about the need for accurate factual support. Here is an example - http://www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/pr_focusgroup_0805.pdf The Center for Reproductive Rights uses this focus group to justify a - filibuster (note that word) - of Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts. This is horse dookey at work: "Initially, there is no great sense of concern or distress at Roberts nomination. Voters know little about him and as a result they conjecture that he does not have terrible liabilities. Indeed, the relative absence of opposition voices has led some to assume that he has support across the aisle." Then: "There is support for use of the filibuster even before respondents hear any of the information about Judge Roberts. Indeed, a majority say that if a nominee has 51 votes but not 60, the President should withdraw the nomination. The watchwords here are consensus and non-partisanship. Voters want both, and a 51-vote margin is a slap in the face to those twin goals." "Slap in the face?" Unbiased reporting here? "Initially, 22% of respondents favored Roberts confirmation, with an additional 33% undecided but leaning towards confirmation. Thus a total of 55% leaned toward support for confirmation." 22% for and 45% against. So the "undecideds" had peer pressure to the tune of 2 to 1 against nomination? How the hell does that give an accurate measure of any of this. Read the full report if you want a good laugh. TWO ISSUES - First, I take a strongly Libertarian view on abortion. When the brain waves begin, there is a living human being. Prior, not. BUT WE CAN ARGUE ABORTION LATER. Really. I promise. My point is that even with my position, I can see that this focus group is BUNK. Second, making stuff up as you go is dangerous. Disagree? Where, in the name of everything constitutional is the requirement for a supermajority to confirm a judicial nomination? FILIBUSTER. In this congress, the DEMS made up this requirement and then used a bull puckey version of history to support it. There? Get it?