Should we let Bill Frist & Co. change the rules of the senate ?

Exciting thread so far.

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

I suggest getting a copy of the federalist papers. Checking minority power is relatively easy. Checking a majority takes a lot more genius. Besides, if you want to play that game, the Senate doesn't represent an elected majority-a voter in north dakota can have greater 'influence' on the judiciary than can a voter in a more populous state.Besides, something like 90% of Bush's candidates were given a vote. The nominees that have become the subject of the filibuster weren't even given the highest certification by the Bar. This is a great example of why we need the filibuster.

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

That sticker is the hotness. Put me in for a dozen.

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

Agreed. This was probably the best the Dems could swing. I was almost looking forward to a showdown-I don't think the Democrats could muster enough votes to keep the senate rules as they are, but it would have been close. And unfortunately I don't think the promised 'obstructionist ' tactics would have had much support.Like Berb said, this is all about the Supreme Court, and I guess the democrats kept themselves in the game at least.

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

I know this is a few posts back, but can someone tell me definitively what the process is for amending the constitution? I was under the impression that an amendment required a supermajority in congress OR a ratification by 3/4ths of the states.Also my hazy american history seems to tell me that the latter would happen during a constitutional convention between states? I'm just confused. Obviously.

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

This may be worthy of a new thread, but what does everyone think of the proposed veto of the new stem cell research package that just passed the house?It is my believe that it will pass in the senate, and the prez will veto. But, after this veto, the political power of the fundamentalists will decline. Look at the coalition backing this bill in the house! They have a jew, a christian, a catholic, a liberal, a conservative, etc. A veto would be spitting in the face of plural society, and will do the republicans more harm than good, IMO.

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'