Sometimes majority rule isn't the best way. If majority rule were law, then I'd probably have to pray to Jesus every morning before I watched my government censored and approved television shows. The majority of Americans are scary, and I for one don't want my future in their rule!

There's a little confusion here. If the letter writer will take the time to read the US Constitution, he will find that representation according to population numbers exists only in the House of Representatives, not in the Senate. That concept was built into the constitution for a reason. What on Earth the writer thinks we need 2 population-representing bodies in Washington for, I'm sure I can't fathom.

I don't like what happened regarding the Bush judges, but I think that it's vital for Americans to accept the working of the constitutionl system, regardless of how warped it becomes during times of one-party rule. Hopefully, balance will come back to the system one day, before the Ship of State tips completely over.

Ahh,,,,Yet another example of the failure of the educational system in our county.

I don't suppose William ever read the part about the President that is in office appointing judges to fill the vacancies in the courts system. And of course the other part about the Senates responsibility of advising and consenting to the appointment. Not to mention the higher level mathematics involved in figuring out what 51% of 100 is.

I think you could use all kinds of numbers to determine a majority. Heck, we didn't count dead people. If we counted dead people, there'd by a lot more democrats. What about the folks in prison. We didn't count them. So what if they can't vote. Doesn't mean they shouldn't count.

Come on, Mr. Jackson. Get real. 56 Senators said Aye, 43 said Nay. End of story.

What Eric said is true, but he left out one important thing. He said "the concept was built into the Constitution for a reason," but he didn't mention what that reason is. Apparently it needs to be explained.

The creation of the House and Senate was a compromise between the large-population and small-population states. They at first were thinking of having a unicameral legislature and debated whether the number of representatives should be based on population or whether each state should have the same number.
Of course, the large states said it should be based on population, because that's only fair. After all, if there are more people in a certain state, then they should have a larger voice.
But the smaller states cried foul, saying that under this system they would essentially never have any voice on anything, and therefore each state should have the same number of votes.

Creating two houses--the House and Senate--one based on population, the other having an equal number of votes, provided the solution to this debate, creating a balance of power among small and large states.

This whole topic of "the judges" is getting a little silly. Just past them and get it over with...

And Mac hit the nail on the head.....

Tater, I suggest you would not be so blaze about about the issue if it was a democratic president making the appointments. And if this blog thing is still going on in 2008 I'll have the opportunity to remind you of your "Anything Bush wants Bush should get" stance.

"Just past them and get it over with..."
You really underestimate the will and resolve of the Democrats, eh?
Although I'm not a Democrat, I applaud their tough stances on these appointments and hope they continue to make their voices be heard.

TO Brian Harper: Here’s a good one -- only 17% of America voted to Bush. I don't think there is reason to fear "The majority of Americans", however there is fear and wonder that the majority of Americans do not voting for anything.

ERIC / MAC / TRUTH: I think you got the point but but then sorta missed it. He wasn't arguing the constitution, just stating that while the constitution allows the majority of those in the Senate to decide, the reality is the majority of citizens may not have been represented.

I understand the system, but feel gerrymandering is ruining a very good thing. It's exclusively about re-electing the incumbent, regardless of anything but holding on to power, and if that's not anti-American (defined as not really in the best interest of our country), I don't know what is.

YVONNE: I agree - I'd have a lot more respect for this whole matter if these same arguments were presented when Clinton was in office. I'm not a Democrat, but there is clearly one-sided rhetoric going on.