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

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I think you might need to look up the definition of "lifetime."

65 is the new dead.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'd do it the other way around. No retirement age, but only 18-year appointments. There'd be no incentive to appoint young people (e.g., Thomas), so most would be appointed in their 50s or early 60s. That would clear them out by the time their in their young 70s. At that point, give them a healthy pension or a seat on an appellate court. The worry about future jobs at that point also is illusory. Who would want to become a senior partner just to make some cash? (And if they did generally, you'd see them leave now, and they don't). Without a possibility of reappointment, there'd be no greater political pressure.

(BTW, 18 years to ensure a new justice ~ every 2 years, so 2 per presidential term)

I could sign up to that too.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Are those actual taxes, or just costs that the provider is passing on to you?

Hard to tell. Some are clearly marked taxes. Others are marked as "surcharges"

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'd do it the other way around. No retirement age, but only 18-year appointments. There'd be no incentive to appoint young people (e.g., Thomas), so most would be appointed in their 50s or early 60s. That would clear them out by the time their in their young 70s. At that point, give them a healthy pension or a seat on an appellate court. The worry about future jobs at that point also is illusory. Who would want to become a senior partner just to make some cash? (And if they did generally, you'd see them leave now, and they don't). Without a possibility of reappointment, there'd be no greater political pressure.

(BTW, 18 years to ensure a new justice ~ every 2 years, so 2 per presidential term)

I could support this.

Wasn't it Holmes who said, "18 years of Clarence Thomas is enough."

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Funny, I was just listening to Nilsson's "Jump in the Fire" on the way in to work... Brought back that scene in Goodfellas where Henry Hill is melting down, driving around town looking at helicopters hovering over his Coupe De Ville. Is there a better 10 minutes in cinema?

That was really well done, although I think the most effective ten minutes of cinema is the first ten minutes of Saving Private Ryan.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
That was really well done, although I think the most effective ten minutes of cinema is the first ten minutes of Saving Private Ryan.

Too true. That always gets me so fucking horny.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'd do it the other way around. No retirement age, but only 18-year appointments. There'd be no incentive to appoint young people (e.g., Thomas), so most would be appointed in their 50s or early 60s. That would clear them out by the time their in their young 70s. At that point, give them a healthy pension or a seat on an appellate court. The worry about future jobs at that point also is illusory. Who would want to become a senior partner just to make some cash? (And if they did generally, you'd see them leave now, and they don't). Without a possibility of reappointment, there'd be no greater political pressure.

(BTW, 18 years to ensure a new justice ~ every 2 years, so 2 per presidential term)

I agree more with Noonan, whose underlying message, as I infer it from this and previous essays on the topic, is it would be nice if some of these people had the class and character and respect for the office to step down when their faculties obviously prevent them from fully effecting the duties of their office. This applies to both sides of the ideological gulf.

In this day and age, thanks to the legacy of the borkers and their pals the Clintons there are few with such statemansike demeanors.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is your best material.

This is either a #2 or #3 whiff, I will check the directory and get back to you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
it would be nice if some of these people had the class and character and respect for the office to step down when their faculties obviously prevent them from fully effecting the duties of their office.

People have been saying this about Clarence Thomas for years. Is there anyone else one the Court who isn't up to the workload? Rehnquist is ill, but he doesn't seem any less sharp.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
This is either a #2 or #3 whiff, I will check the directory and get back to you.

This is not your best material.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Does anyone else find Valentine's use of the phrase "the smart money" a little jarring, in that he otherwise sounds like a member of a Communist youth group?

Not having ever read any official Communist communiques, from my vantage point its hard to tell the difference between what a Communist Youth Group, Sidd, Valentine or Sexual Harrasment Bear are posting.

eta: actually, it all sorts of reads like a DNC press release

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
65 is the new dead.

You had better hope not. Once you pop that kid out time starts moving at triple speed. 65 is right around the corner.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Hard to tell. Some are clearly marked taxes. Others are marked as "surcharges"

It all feeds the same socialist pot. Except for the stuff in the lockboxes.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I could support this.

Wasn't it Holmes who said, "18 years of Clarence Thomas is enough."

No. I think it was Anita Hill and the exact quote may have been:

"18 inches of Clarence Thomas was not enough, which is why I kept coming back for more"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Today's news in the Valerie Plame Defenestration Aftermath is that Time Magazine says it will comply with a court order to turn over correspondent Matthew Cooper's notes, apparently thereby revealing the identity of his source and obviating the need to jail him for contempt of the federal court's order that he cooperate with prosecutors. The Supreme Court declined to grant cert a few days ago, foreclosing Time's prospects of reversing the district court.

Cooper evidently was prepared to go to jail rather than reveal his source. According to the Washington Post, "told Reuters that he would rather Time not turn over his notes but acknowledged that the magazine had its own obligations to consider."

Is it not a little odd that Cooper is prepared to disobey a federal court, but not his own employer? If the principle is worth serving time for, might it not also be worth losing his job?

http://allintensivepurposes.blogspot...ly-so-far.html