Now 2:1 Opposed is Closer to a Mandate

That's how many Americans in most polls oppose Bush's trashing of Social Security.

Also from The Post:

As the Senate moves toward a major confrontation over judicial appointments, a strong majority of Americans oppose changing the rules to make it easier for Republican leaders to win confirmation of President Bush's court nominees, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.

GOP leaders are threatening a rule change to prohibit the use of filibusters to block judicial nominees and have stepped up their criticism of the Democrats for using the tactic on some of Bush's nominees to the federal appellate courts. They say they are prepared to invoke what has become known as the "nuclear option" to ensure that Bush's nominees receive an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

But by a 2 to 1 ratio, the public rejected easing Senate rules in a way that would make it harder for Democratic senators to prevent final action on Bush's nominees. Even many Republicans were reluctant to abandon current Senate confirmation procedures: Nearly half opposed any rule changes, joining eight in 10 Democrats and seven in 10 political independents, the poll found.

Read more about those already-sent-home-once judicial nominees like Janice Brown and Priscilla Owen, and you get a much better idea of a) why Dems would not back them (they're very pro-corporate, pro-their-own-unique flavor of morals, and very anti-normal American) and b) why it's reprehensible that after these judges couldn't get confirmed last time, Bush shoved them back down the throats of the judiciary committee again.

Understand that the courts are quite full of Republicans and conservatives, where they are in the majority on the bench. Many of them are "activist" judges, too, meaning that they go well beyond law to craft their own rulings.

So let's talk about mandates, Mr. Bush.