[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
The papers warn of factions that are both in the majority and in the minority. Of course when the Dems gang up to oppose a nomination they fit the definition of a faction. Similarly when the Dems gang up (when they are in control of the govt) to push a candidate they are a faction. He explicitly warns of the danger of all factions. He further points out that those in the minority can only obstruct, it cannot change the rules or pass legislation. The danger of the majority is that it can pass legislation and force its viewpoint. This is the insight he offers. He says that there is a danger when a faction in the majority can impose its views that may be detrimental.

The fedeal structure was implemented with this in mind. Which is why Mr Zee's has a bigger voice in the senate than do I. WHich is why even though a majority of votes went to Al Gore Bush became president.

Which is why, it is a long term danger if the majority can always push through anything in Congress. Specially if that is changes to rules or lifetime appointments.

The papers are an exercise in nuance. Your bludgeoning approach needs to be modified to understand it, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I understand them just fine. However, I wanted you to admit that the papers are talking AS much about an intolerant minority (the current Senate Democrats) as a oppressive majority (which I don't think the cowardly Republican Senators qualify as).

I don't see how you can have a problem with the Rep's changing the rules and NOT have a problem with the Dem's using filibuster on Judicial Nominations. The CONSTITUTION CLEARLY DEFINES the cases where a SUPERMAJORITY is needed. IT is not with Judicial nominees.