And as to your interpretation of what I said, Steve… All I got to say is that you’re a barrel of laughs. Clearly I was talking about a minority of Senators, not any specific group.

A minority of senators is by definition a group. Sheesh.

And LO is bringing up valid points. Why not supermajorities on every piece of legislation? You know the answer is because then hardly anything would get done in government.

Oh, and yes, changing the requirement from 67 to 60 does weaken the requirement. This should be obvious to most people, but I guess not to those with severe partisan tunnel vision.

But with the filibuster, everything's hunky-dory?

So, if the Senate is ever 61 Republicans, you'll be comfortable w/ that? You won't be concerned about the minority being trampled?

Because, if not, then one has to wonder, again, why you're not demanding a supermajority on everything? Is legislation so unimportant that the rights of the minority can be trampled there, to little concern?

But why is it 60, and not 67? Is the margin from democracy to dictatorship so robust that it can survive falling to 60, but so narrow that falling below that means that Democrats will be gassed in the hills and slaughtered in the streets?

(That is why you mentioned the Shi'ites, right? The oppression they suffered under Saddam?)

And as to your interpretation of what I said, Steve... All I got to say is that you're a barrel of laughs. Clearly I was talking about a minority of Senators, not any specific group. Just as it would be a minority of whatever they will be called in the Iraqi government (if we ever get one).

Yea, reading comprehension.

We have a winnah!

It occurred in 1975, at the behest of the majority party of the day.

Who might that be?

This gives another hint

The funny thing being that not only was it Walter Mondale who was helping to lead the charge, but a certain Senator from West Virginia who was the Majority Whip. Funny, innit?

But why 60, you might ask? Perhaps it had something to do w/ the composition of the Senate at the time: 60-38-1-1.

One guess as to who had 60 seats in the Senate at the time....

Yea, I guess we should stop lecturing those Shiites about the rights of the minority. Clearly, if you have the majority, you have no obligation to the minority. Might makes right.

Where exactly did I say that minorities, be they racial, religious, political or otherwise do not have rights that should be protected? Let me see....uhhhh nowhere. Maybe Hal, you should work on that reading comprehension thing. Sheesh.

If you read this post and my previous one you can see I have heaps of scorn for both sides of this issue. Both sides are full of hypocrisy and political posturing.

BTW, ever wonder why it’s 60 votes and not 67? You might be interested in knowing who shifted the votes downward and why.)

Geee, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess.....Democrats?

I mean, by these lights, shouldn't every vote require at least a supermajority? (BTW, ever wonder why it's 60 votes and not 67? You might be interested in knowing who shifted the votes downward and why.)

But, even then, the minority would be overwhelmed, wouldn't it? Shouldn't it be government by unanimity? Otherwise, every minority will be overruled eventually, and how will their voices be heard and their rights protected?