Only trouble with your argument is that in 1995, the Dems understood that 67 votes are required to change the Senate rules. Frist et al. aren't willing to play by the same rules, now claiming they need votes from only 50 U.S. senators to force a vote on Bush's totally unqualified judicial nominees.
Actually, according to Senate rules, they only need 50 votes.
Bush's nominees are unqualified? Now the truth comes out.
Get out of here with your liberal rhetorical rubbish about Bush's nominees being unqualified. Yet another red herring. Most of them have received the American Bar Association's highest rating. What makes them unqualified in the eyes of liberals/Democrats is that liberal pressure groups are pushing for their defeat. Most of the overturning of bans which the majority of Americans support have come from the Circuit Court level. As I said before, if the states which have say, banned same-sex marriage in their states, have those bans overturned it will most likely come from and end at the Circuit Court level.
Numerous strict constructionists from Bush could pretty much signal an end to that particular threat, and other unconstitutional activism from the bench.
As well, take a look at the NationalReview article which was provided. The Supreme Court has stated that only a majority of votes are needed to change the rules, as in doing away with the filibuster.
"Totally unqualified?" That is patently ridiculous.