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

So perhaps they have a different view about the constitutionality than the Supreme Court does. It doesn't mean they don't have a view. And with Senate rules, there is no appeal to the Supreme Court.

Shite of Get off the Pot time
 

You suck. Social decorum dictates you play along. You liberals have no manners.

BREAKING NEWS UPDATE.......
 

I'll bet he's in D.C.

But is this to replace O'Connor or Rehnquist? And is it sourced from Novak again?

BREAKING NEWS UPDATE.......
 

Born 1955 in Buffalo, N.Y. Graduate of Harvard College and Law School. Clerked for Justice Rehnquist when he was an associate justice. Was special assistant to the attorney general from 1981 to 1982, associate counsel to the Reagan White House from 1982 to 1986, and principal deputy solicitor general from 1989 to 1993. Tapped by President George H.W. Bush in 1992 for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, often regarded as a stepping stone to the high court, but the nomination stalled because of the pending election, and he subsequently joined law firm Hogan & Hartson. In his government and private roles, he argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court. Senate Democrats initially filibustered his renomination to the D.C. Circuit Court but he was confirmed in 2003. He is associated with the push by the Reagan and first Bush administrations to overturn or limit Roe v. Wade.

If this is true, it looks like the liberals will lose here. Big time.

Roe v Wade, RIP
 

http://www.drudgereport.com/siren.gif

John C. Roberts has been confirmed as the nominee.

http://www.drudgereport.com/siren.gif

More on Filibusters
 

If and when Leahy, Boxer et. al. try to filibuster this Roberts nominations, let us see about those balls, shall we?

Shite of Get off the Pot time
 

I concur. It's Brown, for so many reasons:

1. It will piss off liberals, which Bush loves to do. He's never outgrown that kind of stuff.
2. It will please the American Taliban and their mullahs Dobson, Robertson, etc.
3. It will divert attention from Plamegate and get the traitorous scumbag Karl Rove off the hook.
4. It will allow Bush to one-up his dad, which he also can't keep himself from doing - "Oh, you appointed the first black? Big deal, Pops - how about the first black woman! Hah! "

BREAKING NEWS UPDATE.......
 

C'mon. It's Drudge. Deep in your heart, you know he's wrong. Again.

eta: OTOH, CNN is confirming. Stopped clocks and all that.

Shite of Get off the Pot time
 

That some other CIA spooks were the initial leak to Miller. Sure, why not.

If Murray Waas's sources are right, Karl Rove could be in trouble for failing to tell the truth to the FBI.

BREAKING NEWS UPDATE.......
 

ABC and CNN calling the same thing.

If it was CBS, I might agree with you for once.

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why would the executive challenge a confirmation of its candidate?

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

Executive could challenge if nominee wasn't getting up or down vote by full senate.

Because the CON requires the advise and consent of the "Senate" not a committee thereof. Ty takes the view that the Senate can make it's own rules governing how it gives or does not give it's consent. I question the Constiutionality of that. A committee structure in general does not raise similar concerns because the Senate does not have a Constitutional obligation to pass laws.

BREAKING NEWS UPDATE.......
 

I called it first on this board. It is a great pick. A win for Bush's America. He came through on his promise.

Now it's GAME ON to take this battle to the Dimwits.

Shite of Get off the Pot time
 

1. Are you right about anything?
2. Ever?
3. Seriously. Ever?
4. I hear Canada is lovely in Summer.

Restoring honor and dignity to the White House!
 

Accusing someone who served this country as a covert CIA operative of "treason" is outrageous even for a third-rate troll like you, Penske.

Shite of Get off the Pot time
 

Never.

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

You mean sometimes the USSC actually considers what the lower courts have said on an issue as relevant to the question of what the Constitution means?

No, say it ain't so.

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

Why? The Constitution also says "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,...".

CIAdate.com
 

Spoken like a man who knows war. Who knows front-line action. Who knows what it's like.

Have some respect for the people who allow you to live your cushy white-collar life.

Shite of Get off the Pot time
 

How'd that Luttig pick work out?

Hmm, not so good. And your second pick? Estrada?

Oh well.

CIAdate.com
 

Please. Facts are not a desirable addition to this debate. He's a traitor, she's a traitor, and Saddam had the Bomb.

Did He Consult?
 

I've read recently that the Dems, at least important ones, have been happy with Bush's level of consultation. Those DEMs include Lieberman, Byrd and Lehee. So that leads me to believe that either this nomination will sail through or Bush screwed them.

Shite of Get off the Pot time
 

You did as well as Slave did.

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

That doesn't get me there.

Did He Consult?
 

I assume you mean Patrick Leahy. If so, that's great, as well as Byrd. As for Lieberman, who gives a shit what he thinks.

Did He Consult?
 

Ricky Ledee, maybe?

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

I don't think even an express train is going to get you there.

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

The constitution says nothing about the responsibility of the Senate to make sure that the consent is given via an up or down vote of each of its members. In conjunction with the fact that each House may make its own rules on how to carry out its business, the Senate could determine consent on a coin toss if it so chose.

Did He Consult?
 

And a player to be named later?

Did He Consult?
 

They've already taken a look at him in 2003, so most of the vetting is already done. The fact that he conceeded that Roe is the law of the land in that confirmation process shows that a) he (unlike Thomas) believes in stare decisis and b) Roe isn't in jeapordy from him.

I'm guessing this will be a Bryer and Ginsburg type of confirmation process. 90 plus Senators will confirm, unless there's some sort of major scandal out there over him.

ETA: NARAL hates him. Abortion is going to be key in this confirmation process. He has a nice resume of fighting Roe for the fundies, but if what he said in his confirmation hearing in 2003 is still accurate, the pro-choice crowd should be mollified.

That said, what people say and what they do are two entirely different things, though when it comes to Supreme Court Justices, the GOP isn't that great at getting their people to do what they want.

Shite of Get off the Pot time
 

So he went with Roberts, the Rehnquist clerk, over Luttig, the Scalia clerk.

Perhaps the strategy is to save Luttig for when Rehnquist leaves and Scalia gets promoted to CJ - thus replacing Scalia with a protege.

I was wrong, but not unhappy at the choice.

PS - Estrada was a joke.

Restoring honor and dignity to the White House!
 

Have you ever heard of Aldrich Ames or Edward Lee Howard? Keep drinking the kool-aid Sidd.

Shite of Get off the Pot time
 

I was wrong. OTOH, he was #4 on my list that I released on July 4th. Not bad overall.

Plus, we win!

Did He Consult?
 

It will be properly narrowed.

Did He Consult?
 

So it's no longer "settled law"?

Did He Consult?
 

I don't think anything is ever "settled" with finality and thank god for that or we would have never had Brown v. Board of Ed.

Here it comes...
 

Front page of NOW's website:

---

People for the American Way:

----

NARAL:

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

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but if you take this view, then I think you must also take the view that the Senate could pass a rule that says that it only takes 40 votes to approve a bill or imposes a supermajority vote to approve a bill. Do you agree?

BREAKING NEWS UPDATE.......
 

Translation: Drudge's source was CNN.

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

Nothing says advise and consent means only a majority. Nor does anything say they must consent to a nominee. The president can propose nominees; the senate can vote them down. The president can propose laws; the senate can refuse to pass them. You have a distinction without a difference. what matters is, when the Senate decides to take action, must it always have an escape-valve that ensures a simple majority can take action, regardless of whatever rules it has in place that might prevent that? In other words, you're still missing the point: The Senate (and to a lesser degree teh House) has a host of rules and structures that mean the majority may not get its way. Committee structure is but just one.