Heh
 

Heh. That statement tickles me because it ... works on several different levels. It is a succinct summary of the cultural rift, and quite hilarious when you can't bring yourself to find the idea of any of sex, smoking or hunting "morally repugnant."

Heh
 

My guess is that he refers to vaginas as tampon holders when speaking in private.

breaking news: the doomsday clock ticks one minute closer to the apocalypse
 

Don't you think that depends on who he puts up? I mean, some people will complain no matter what happens, but some are waiting to see. Penske seems to have my proxy on Clement -- is there any remarkable about her other than that she seems to be confirmable?

breaking news: the doomsday clock ticks one minute closer to the apocalypse
 

If so, wouldn't that suggest even moreso that the filibuster isn't unconstitutional?

breaking news: the doomsday clock ticks one minute closer to the apocalypse
 

As I understand it, and I may have the facts wrong, Fortas did not have support in the full Senate, which was then controlled by the Dems, so the filli was bipartisan. I don't think this sheds any light on the question of constitutionality. Why would it? It's constitutional because we did it before?

breaking news: the doomsday clock ticks one minute closer to the apocalypse
 

I think your facts are wrong. The Republicans tried to filibuster Fortas, and failed. There may have been some Dems joining them, but I would doubt it, since Fortas was a pal of LBJ's.

Exactly. Did you miss Con Law? The fact that it's been done indicates that it's OK, unless you -- like Clarence Thomas -- don't believe in stare decisis. Which is a very strange thing for a "conservative" to say, since it's the polar opposite of conservatism. A respect for precedent, and for the fact that the filibuster has been around for a long time, would ordinarily lead "conservatives" to accept its constitutionality.

breaking news: the doomsday clock ticks one minute closer to the apocalypse
 

Your facts don't necessarily support your conclusion. To wit, if you reversed the situation (R's controlled) and made the same claim, would you conclude the filibuster is bipartisan? If so, how would you reconcile that with teh current situation in the Senate?

New Rankings!
 

Burger, your rationale dooms us to repeat Souter. Remember when Sununu said he was a conversative?!?!?

breaking news: the doomsday clock ticks one minute closer to the apocalypse
 

I'll have to check my facts

I understand that stare decisis applies to court decisions, but I didn't know it applies to actions prior to being challenged. This seems wrong to me. And I am not a conservative.

breaking news: the doomsday clock ticks one minute closer to the apocalypse
 

I didn't mean my statement as a causal connection.

New Rankings!
 

See that should have raised warning flags right then and there. Five minutes with the guy and you would realize that he ain't no chatty cathy.

aV

New Rankings!
 

So you're saying conservatives can't execute a solid plan, well?

New Rankings!
 

See, e.g., Iraq.

breaking news: the doomsday clock ticks one minute closer to the apocalypse
 

I suggest then that you reevaluate your use of the word "so", as it ordinarily is understood to identify a logical conclusion based upon a preceding statement.

New Rankings!
 

Glad you agree it was a solid plan, at least.

breaking news: the doomsday clock ticks one minute closer to the apocalypse
 

I'm not sure what you mean, but the Senate's use of the filibuster decades ago surely is a significant precedent, unless you decide that the way the Senate has understood things in the past is irrelevant to deciding what the Constitution means.

New Rankings!
 

Conceded only for the sake of the example. But surely the plan was better than the execution.

New Rankings!
 

I'm saying I am wary of stealth candidates and am fearing that this Clement could be a(nother) Souter in federalist's clothing.

My prayer candle is burning to help lend the President strength and resolve.

BREAKING NEWS
 

ABC News is reporting that Edith B. Clement has received a call from W and will NOT be the nominee.

Further, there are reports that Edith Jones was seen in the Houston airport today boarding a plane for DC.

Things are trending right.........more to follow......

Hey Libs....
 

Restoring honor and dignity to the White House!
 

Alas, your book has not been enacted into the US Code.

I've watched Wilson for the past few weeks and have this observation... Its not wise for the GOP to take him on head to head or try to villify him in any talk shows where he's able to respond live. He's a very cool and collected public speaker. Fuming talking heads like Mehlman look weak juxtaposed against him.

The GOP should stop the Wilson smear campaign. Its two weeks old and its got no traction. If smears don't get traction in the first week, thats a sign they never will. The GOP is better off working the best fact it has - "Rove did not out a CIA operative in violation of the law." That is true. Why don't they just keep ramming it home?

Hey Libs....
 

Restoring honor and dignity to the White House!
 

Have you been on an Atkins-induced flashback for the last 2 years?

BREAKING NEWS
 

According to ABCNEWS' source, Clement was thanked for meeting with the president and sharing her views on the Supreme Court, but that the administration has decided to go in a "different direction."

Rightward! Woo hoo! This thing is trending, big time! I predict it will either be Edith Jones, Luttig, or JR Brown.

More to follow..........

breaking news: the doomsday clock ticks one minute closer to the apocalypse
 

I suggest you kiss my ass

breaking news: the doomsday clock ticks one minute closer to the apocalypse
 

I don't think their understanding of things is relevant to deciding what the Constitution means.

Restoring honor and dignity to the White House!
 

Wow -- it was Plame's decision to send Wilson to that five-star resort of a country known as Niger?

Boy, she is a big evil cunt of a woman. I guess we can't expect better from someone who took such a cushy, no-risk, no-service-to-her-country job like "covert CIA operative."

breaking news: the doomsday clock ticks one minute closer to the apocalypse
 

But it is relevant now?

P.S. Call MR.

Restoring honor and dignity to the White House!
 

Morals are all relative. The issue regarding Rove is whether he did something unethical and sleazy and lowball. The issue as to the admin is whether it obstructed justice or lied to cover up Karl's dirty deed.

BUT the real issue is if this ugly little incident has enough traction and substance behind it to shame this White House into being as transparant as an Admin should be.

The real question is "Can this be the cultural/political flashpoint that rolls the wave back over Bush?" For the past two years, the Dems have pounded him on Iraq and stymied his domestic agenda. Lucky timing will allow him to reshape the Court, but will Bush's second term produce anything else? Or is this the final straw, the last of a line of small scandals, suspicions and lies which put this Admin on the defensive, running from charges for the remainder of its term, and never getting the chance to follow through on its bold agenda?

Rove won't be jailed, and whatever the violation was, its minor. But is it enough to work a chink into the teflon and leave Bush swinging in the wind like Reagan in his second term after Iran Contra started? I think it might.

breaking news: the doomsday clock ticks one minute closer to the apocalypse
 

Ty or Burger could probably explain this much better than I, but don't the courts defer to Congress on how Congress chooses to conduct its business?

breaking news: the doomsday clock ticks one minute closer to the apocalypse
 

Why?

breaking news: the doomsday clock ticks one minute closer to the apocalypse
 

What?

Huh?

breaking news: the doomsday clock ticks one minute closer to the apocalypse
 

Because their understanding may lead to an unconstitutional result. For example, Congress' understanding of every law they pass is that it's constitutional. Most of the time they are probably right, but occassionally they get smacked down by the court. We don't get a ruling on constitutionality until it's actually challenged. So to say that fillibusters are constitutional because they have been used (but never challenged) in the past, doesn't make sense to me.

breaking news: the doomsday clock ticks one minute closer to the apocalypse
 

I suggest you use "arse". It sounds classier.

breaking news: the doomsday clock ticks one minute closer to the apocalypse
 

That's a fair point, but why is this Senate better positioned to make that determination? It's the reverse of an originalist argument they're making. That is, ordinarily a practice that was in place at the founding (or thereabouts) is presumed to be constitutional because absent something explicit in the constitution, we assume there was no intention to make it unconstitutional. For example, we assume teh death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment because it was used regularly in the 18th century. Had that clause been intended to make the death penalty unconstitutional, we would have seen something more explicit, like discusison of the fact and acknowledgement of the new era.

Same with the fillibuster. It's been used for 200 years, without a question of its constitutionality. That means something.

breaking news: the doomsday clock ticks one minute closer to the apocalypse
 

Generally, except for activist courts, like Rehnquist, who throws out federal statutes all the time.

If you're referring to the greatest judicial dodge of all time, the "political question doctrine" then yo're definitely right.

Restoring honor and dignity to the White House!
 

I think we should expect that a CIA employee will refrain from using her husband in a conspiratorial partisan tinged plot to treasonously damage the Nation's war effourt and national defence. The correct response would have been to covertly liquidate the two of them, but unfortunately, the demo led Church Commission emasculated our nation's ability to effectively deal with such turncoats.

Restoring honor and dignity to the White House!
 

One has to wonder why not. One possibility--the "I did not have sex with that woman" problem -- is still there. I'm not sure they're convinced they have the facts on this, at least for everyone in the whitehouse, and don't want to go out on that limb.

BTW, prediction. Sooner or later, Bush will say "anyone convicted of a crime will have to leave the whitehouse". Not just charged.

breaking news: the doomsday clock ticks one minute closer to the apocalypse
 

:yum:

get thee to the FB.

breaking news: the doomsday clock ticks one minute closer to the apocalypse
 

A circuit court of appeals' understanding is that every decision it makes is constitutional. The fact that the Supreme Court sometimes disagrees does not mean that the circuit court was ignoring the Constitution. And here, the Senate is the body that construes its own rules, not a court.