LawTalkers - Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
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.

Well, as a friend just pointed out to me, this Rove thing is all put aside for the night....

Tonight is the "Forget Karl Rove Rally." How much you wanna bet monkey boy doesn't allow the press to ask any questions and/or refuses to answer questions about Rove? If the press lets him off easy, fuck them. They deserve the public's low opinion of their field. Tonight is the night where some ballsy bastard needs to say "Edith's fine, but Mr. President, we want to know about your backpeddling on the Leak Firing promise."

sgtclub

07-19-2005 07:01 PM

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

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
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.

Well I'm going to fight the hypo - This particular senate is not making any determination. It would be a court making it if it were challenged.

This particular Senate is no better positioned than any other Senate, just like a plaintiff that challenges the constitutionality of a statute is no better positioned to do that than a person to whom the statute was applied prior in time.

sgtclub

07-19-2005 07:04 PM

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

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

No, but it doesn't make the substance of their decision constitutional either. The senate is free to construe it's own rules, as long as those rules don't lead to unconstitutional results. Surely if the Senate's internal rules required a 2/3 approval for an action for which the Constitution expressly requires a majority, the Senate should not be permitted to interpret its rules to thwart an express Constitutional provision.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

07-19-2005 07:10 PM

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

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Well I'm going to fight the hypo - This particular senate is not making any determination. It would be a court making it if it were challenged.

This particular Senate is no better positioned than any other Senate, just like a plaintiff that challenges the constitutionality of a statute is no better positioned to do that than a person to whom the statute was applied prior in time.

How would a court ever have the opportunity to hear this challenge? If the nuclear option is used, what does Ted Kennedy do--sue to say that a judge was confirmed over a lawful fillibuster?

As to your point in the next post, how can many of the Senate's rules be justified? For example, if a committee refuses to report out a nominee or a bill, that ends it. That can happen with just 9 or 10 senators. Or a hold--a single senator can stop some things. Ty can have my proxy on this one from here.

ltl/fb

07-19-2005 07:15 PM

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

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How would a court ever have the opportunity to hear this challenge? If the nuclear option is used, what does Ted Kennedy do--sue to say that a judge was confirmed over a lawful fillibuster?

As to your point in the next post, how can many of the Senate's rules be justified? For example, if a committee refuses to report out a nominee or a bill, that ends it. That can happen with just 9 or 10 senators. Or a hold--a single senator can stop some things. Ty can have my proxy on this one from here.

Can someone please quote my helpful explanation of MR's version of toe-sucking? I think club has me on ignore.

Penske_Account

07-19-2005 07:18 PM

More Signs

The raging debate on the Internet is whether or not the below picture is truth or fiction (ala phottoshoppe). Well done soldier! God Bless!

http://www.truthorfiction.com/images/hillary.jpg

The picture shows that this soldier has been thru Survival School and learned his lessons well. He's giving the sign of "coercion" with his left hand. These hand signs are taught in survival school to be used by POW's as a method of posing messages back to our intelligence services who may view the photo or video. This guy was obviously being coerced into shaking hands with Hillary Clinton. It's ironic how little she knew that he would so inform us about the photo---perhaps because she's never understood our military to begin with.

sgtclub

07-19-2005 07:20 PM

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

Quote:

Theoretically, the Executive branch could challenge. Or, a non-committee member could challenge.

Quote:

As to your point in the next post, how can many of the Senate's rules be justified? For example, if a committee refuses to report out a nominee or a bill, that ends it. That can happen with just 9 or 10 senators. Or a hold--a single senator can stop some things. Ty can have my proxy on this one from here.

I'm not sure I understand this.

SlaveNoMore

07-19-2005 07:23 PM

CIAdate.com

Quote:

Sidd Finch
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."

If she gave up being CIA while petting, I'd hate to see what secrets she'd give up under duress.

Tyrone Slothrop

07-19-2005 07:25 PM

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

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
No, but it doesn't make the substance of their decision constitutional either. The senate is free to construe it's own rules, as long as those rules don't lead to unconstitutional results. Surely if the Senate's internal rules required a 2/3 approval for an action for which the Constitution expressly requires a majority, the Senate should not be permitted to interpret its rules to thwart an express Constitutional provision.

Maybe it's not dispositive, but it's not meaningless unless you presume that the Senate ordinarily ignores the Constitution.

And I don't believe the courts will exercise jurisdiction in a fight concerning the Senate's own rules, so the Senate is the highest court on this question.

SlaveNoMore

07-19-2005 07:28 PM

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

Quote:

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
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.

The House had one too - they chucked it.

As for the Senate, only in the last 10-15 years has this "silent filibuster" been in effect. And unlike "true" filibusters, which you can beat by waiting the opposition part (e.g., Byrd and his filibuster of the Civil Rights Bills), this new "silent filibuster" acts as an outright minority veto. Wholly different result.

sgtclub

07-19-2005 07:28 PM

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

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe it's not dispositive, but it's not meaningless unless you presume that the Senate ordinarily ignores the Constitution.

Ignore may be a strong word, but I don't think many of them have the first fucking clue. See e.g., the flag buring amendment or campaign finance reform.

Quote:

And I don't believe the courts will exercise jurisdiction in a fight concerning the Senate's own rules, so the Senate is the highest court on this question.

For the most part, I agree with this, but that doesn't make it Constitutional per se.

Tyrone Slothrop

07-19-2005 07:31 PM

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

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Ignore may be a strong word, but I don't think many of them have the first fucking clue. See e.g., the flag buring amendment or campaign finance reform.

As for the flag-burning amendment, they're changing the Constitution because they don't like it. As for campaign-finance reform, my recollection is that most of it was upheld as constitutional, no?

Quote:

For the most part, I agree with this, but that doesn't make it Constitutional per se.

Burger has my proxy, since he appears to be asking the questions I would.

SlaveNoMore

07-19-2005 07:33 PM

More on Filibusters

"In 1975 the senators changed the filibuster requirement from 67 votes to 60, after concluding that it only takes a simple majority to change the rules governing their proceedings. As Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield ([D-Mont.) said at the time: ''We cannot allow a minority'' of the senators ''to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there.'' Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd and Biden all agreed."

Nearly a decade ago, Lloyd Cutler, the former White House counsel to Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, concluded that the Senate rule requiring a supermajority vote to change the rule is ''plainly unconstitutional.'"'

sgtclub

07-19-2005 07:35 PM

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

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As for the flag-burning amendment, they're changing the Constitution because they don't like it. As for campaign-finance reform, my recollection is that most of it was upheld as constitutional, no?

I believe the flag burning amendment was brought up only after a similar statute had been ruled down.

You're right on campaign finance. I guess I just can't believe it was upheld, so it conveniently slipped my mind. There are other examples of assinine laws attempted to be passed, most recently by the right.

Penske_Account

07-19-2005 07:36 PM

More on Filibusters

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd and Biden all agreed."

An idiot, a killer, a klansman and a cheater. the leading lights of the Demo party. Sad.

Gattigap

07-19-2005 07:39 PM

More Signs

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The raging debate on the Internet is whether or not the below picture is truth or fiction (ala phottoshoppe). Well done soldier! God Bless!

I think we've seen this one before. You've met your quota on this one, Penske.

Penske_Account

07-19-2005 07:46 PM

More Signs

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
I think we've seen this one before. You've met your quota on this one, Penske.

You are correct, the point was that it is true, not a photoshoppe. This is the first time its authenticity has been authenticated.

Shape Shifter

07-19-2005 07:47 PM

More Signs

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
You are correct, the point was that it is true, not a photoshoppe. This is the first time its authenticity has been authenticated.

Guess they'll have to come up with a new secret sign for coercion.

Penske_Account

07-19-2005 07:48 PM

More Signs

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
I think we've seen this one before. You've met your quota on this one, Penske.

ps: Here's another. Look at the girl in the back. Obviously not pleased to be seen with one of Hanoi's war heroes.

http://www.blackfive.net/photos/unca...y_img_4136.jpg

Gattigap

07-19-2005 07:51 PM

More Signs

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
ps: Here's another. Look at the girl in the back. Obviously not pleased to be seen with one of Hanoi's war heroes.

Clearly. She's so pissed that her part is veering off the side of her head. You sure this is a woman, Penske, or did you pull this off of a Hilary-hating site where each photo is infused with lesbianism?

Penske_Account

07-19-2005 07:54 PM

More Signs

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Clearly. She's so pissed that her part is veering off the side of her head. You sure this is a woman, Penske, or did you pull this off of a Hilary-hating site where each photo is infused with lesbianism?

Don't drink Sidd's kool-aid. You are classier than that.

Shape Shifter

07-19-2005 07:58 PM

More Signs

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
ps: Here's another. Look at the girl in the back. Obviously not pleased to be seen with one of Hanoi's war heroes.

This is the sort of breakdown of discipline in the military that leads to situations like Abu Grahib. I think it flows from the CinC.

Penske_Account

07-19-2005 08:08 PM

Shite of Get off the Pot time

With two hours to go before the most historic SCOTUS appointment of the century, it is time to lay down your predictions for posterity. You either have the balls to go on record or not.

I am going with my number 1 pick Janice Rodgers Brown (I was going to with Edith "Bait and Switch" Jones but sources are reporting she is still in Houston as I type), who is in DC today (confirmed).

Roe eats shite and dies by 2010.

:fuckyou: Teddy!

SlaveNoMore

07-19-2005 08:16 PM

Shite of Get off the Pot time

Quote:

Penske_Account
With two hours to go before the most historic SCOTUS appointment of the century, it is time to lay down your predictions for posterity. You either have the balls to go on record or not.

I am going with my number 1 pick Janice Rodgers Brown (I was going to with Edith "Bait and Switch" Jones but sources are reporting she is still in Houston as I type), who is in DC today (confirmed).

Roe eats shite and dies by 2010.

:fuckyou: Teddy!

I'll go with Luttig over Estrada.

sebastian_dangerfield

07-19-2005 08:25 PM

More Signs

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
ps: Here's another. Look at the girl in the back. Obviously not pleased to be seen with one of Hanoi's war heroes.

http://www.blackfive.net/photos/unca...y_img_4136.jpg

Who's the Ricky Riccardo impersonator in the middle?

sebastian_dangerfield

07-19-2005 08:28 PM

Shite of Get off the Pot time

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
With two hours to go before the most historic SCOTUS appointment of the century, it is time to lay down your predictions for posterity. You either have the balls to go on record or not.

I am going with my number 1 pick Janice Rodgers Brown (I was going to with Edith "Bait and Switch" Jones but sources are reporting she is still in Houston as I type), who is in DC today (confirmed).

Roe eats shite and dies by 2010.

:fuckyou: Teddy!

Chucklehead... Will you support the first state bills to give free abortions to those who can't afford them? If not, you've no business calling yourself a Rockefeller Republican. Its only makes good economic sense. Less mouths to feed.

Penske_Account

07-19-2005 08:32 PM

Shite of Get off the Pot time

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Chucklehead... Will you support the first state bills to give free abortions to those who can't afford them? If not, you've no business calling yourself a Rockefeller Republican. Its only makes good economic sense. Less mouths to feed.

Sebby,

You know I love you like a strange uncle, but your chickenshite inability to take a stance is concerning me. Strap on a pair of prosthetic testicles (call Hillary, she will probably lend/lease you a set) and make your prediction.

Post now or foreever hold your piece.

Penske_Account

07-19-2005 08:37 PM

Shite of Get off the Pot time

PS:

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Chucklehead... Will you support the first state bills to give free abortions to those who can't afford them?

If it was at a State level, and was related to first trimester abortions or post-first term abortions where there was a greater likelihood of death or incapacity to the mother in continuing the pregnancy than naught, and my state (probably WA as I don't see myself moving for a while) had done away with its parental notice prohibition, I could probably support that.

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
If not, you've no business calling yourself a Rockefeller Republican.

I don't even think one of my socks has aspired to such an affiliation and I have had pro-Hillary socks in the past. I am a REagan Republican.

SlaveNoMore

07-19-2005 08:42 PM

For Ty and His Boy Josh

Quote:

Gattigap
Slave's kitchen is in the Four Seasons Niger!

We're serving sweet tea and I'd tell you some stuff but I'm sure you won't listen anyway.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

07-19-2005 08:42 PM

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

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Theoretically, the Executive branch could challenge. Or, a non-committee member could challenge.

I'm not sure I understand this.

Why would the executive challenge a confirmation of its candidate?

And if it's on legislation, it has a veto.

And, if you're saying the filibuster is unconstitutional, why is the committee structure generally not also unconstitutional, since a minority can block the majority?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

07-19-2005 08:42 PM

CIAdate.com

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If she gave up being CIA while petting, I'd hate to see what secrets she'd give up under duress.

Wilson has a security clearance, or did at the time, so she could tell him.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

07-19-2005 08:44 PM

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

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The House had one too - they chucked it.

As for the Senate, only in the last 10-15 years has this "silent filibuster" been in effect. And unlike "true" filibusters, which you can beat by waiting the opposition part (e.g., Byrd and his filibuster of the Civil Rights Bills), this new "silent filibuster" acts as an outright minority veto. Wholly different result.

No one's said the fillibuster rule is mandatory. And the entire Senate agreed to continue with this practice. Why is the "silent filibuster" any more (or less) unconstitutional? The result is the same; the effort to get there is not. There are plenty of good arguments why it's a worse rule from a procedural standpoint, or even from a standpoint of legitimately measuring intensity of preference. But the differnece between teh two is not of a constitutional dimension.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

07-19-2005 08:45 PM

More on Filibusters

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"In 1975 the senators changed the filibuster requirement from 67 votes to 60, after concluding that it only takes a simple majority to change the rules governing their proceedings. As Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield ([D-Mont.) said at the time: ''We cannot allow a minority'' of the senators ''to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there.'' Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd and Biden all agreed."

Nearly a decade ago, Lloyd Cutler, the former White House counsel to Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, concluded that the Senate rule requiring a supermajority vote to change the rule is ''plainly unconstitutional.'"'

Not sure what your point on the first is, other than dems. But on the second, it's a different point, because it goes to the creation of the rules in the first place, not their content. I don't think anyone has said that teh nuclear option itself is somehow either unconstitutional or barred by the rules of the senate. it clearly is constitutional and consistent with the rules.

ETA: Quadro-phenia! Quad-rangular!

Tyrone Slothrop

07-19-2005 08:48 PM

More on Filibusters

Quote:

You see that these two paragraphs contradict each other, no?

And the Senate rule requiring a supermajority to change the rules is something different. To put it in your terms, the Republican leadership doesn't have the balls to simply change the rules. That's why we have this charade about whether the old rule is unconstitutional.

sebastian_dangerfield

07-19-2005 08:48 PM

Shite of Get off the Pot time

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Sebby,

You know I love you like a strange uncle, but your chickenshite inability to take a stance is concerning me. Strap on a pair of prosthetic testicles (call Hillary, she will probably lend/lease you a set) and make your prediction.

Post now or foreever hold your piece.

Make my prediction about what? SCOTUS? Why? We'll know in two hours. I'm more interested in the Rove Scandal.

Unless he nominates something with four legs or announces he's a screaming queen McGreevy-style, nothing Bush says tonight is going to kill the Rove Debacle. I'm staying on message, Penske. You fritter around debating justices. I'm still waiting for Fitz to potentially drop the big one.

I don't predict. I comment.

Penske_Account

07-19-2005 08:48 PM

BREAKING NEWS UPDATE.......

http://www.drudgereport.com/siren.gif Drudge is reporting John C. Roberts. http://www.drudgereport.com/siren.gif

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

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:33 PM.

Page 112 of 126

112

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page