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

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Is this a ranking or a prediction? Epstein/Posner/Easterbrook have the same chane a sStarr, Ashcroft, and Bork, which is 0. Of course, they're not getting down to no. 12, which is why Gonzalez should be up a lot higher on the list.

I think Gonzalez is the pick. Edith Clement as dark horse.

It may well be a moot point by this evening, but CNN is breathlessly speculating that it's Clement. Berger, I don't know squat about Clement, but apparently you do. What's the scoop?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap
It may well be a moot point by this evening, but CNN is breathlessly speculating that it's Clement. Berger [sic], I don't know squat about Clement, but apparently you do. What's the scoop?

I don't know much, which is why she's an attractive alternative.

1) Female
2) Unlike Edith Jones, didn't write a vicious dissent in the attempt to reopen Roe v. Wade 30 years on.
3) Elevated by this President, so must have some friends in the right places.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
But there's always perjury. I mean, ask Penske about the difference between lying (like Rove did) and lying to a grand jury.

Big difference. Perjury is an impeachable offence. And righteously so

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
He was just exercising his rights under the 2d Amendment, no?

1. A bomb is not agun. Notwithstanding the definition of "well armed" "arms", I don't have a problem with the reasonable regulation of explosives.

2. In this particular instance, even assuming an exercise of Second Amendment rights was occuring, his rights ended where the victims' persons started.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Except that it was a nefarious plot . . . just not an illegal one.

I forget, are you in the "as long as it's legal, it's moral" camp with Penske?

I'm not sure I ever said that. Do you have cite? I think there is a distinction between legal and illegal, and also clearly defined concepts of good and evil/immoral; but evil/immoral does not always equal illegal. For example, not withstanding a certain amorality in my own personal (private) sexual beliefs, I think sex with non-human animals is wrong (for many reasons) and immoral, however I recognize the fact that in the State of Washington sexual relations with non-human animals is legal and respect the rule of law regarding the same.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I don't know much, which is why she's an attractive alternative.

1) Female
2) Unlike Edith Jones, didn't write a vicious dissent in the attempt to reopen Roe v. Wade 30 years on.
3) Elevated by this President, so must have some friends in the right places.

I have heard from somewhat credible, albeit liberal (although not leftwingnutty like Sidd, no offence), that she has expressed certain not so politically correct sentiments in chambers. I have no way of knowing if this is true or not (YMMV) and she is number 14 or 15 on my list and thus qualified by my standard; however I would rather see Janice Rodgers Brown or Edith Jones.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
BTW, it's all over around 9:01 tonight. there will be more interesting things to focus on.

Oh you mean Lennox Lewis's guest appearance on tonight's I Want To Be A Hilton where he gives croquet lessons? Agree!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Ty, you have become completely and utterly blind. This is going on on both sides. If you don't want to recognize that the DEMs are as much if not more to blame, there is no point in discussing this further.

Are you not reading my posts? It takes two to tango. But one party is driving things more than the other lately. Ask yourself, who gains from what has been happening in the last few years? Hint: It's not liberal Democrats.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Things got really nasty in the South Carolina Repulican primaries. Ask John McCain what he thinks of Karl Rove.

Democrats were responsible for that. Ask club.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
If it's a sucker bet, than people should admit that this is a political show rather than some nefarious plot to out Plame.

When the President says he'll fire people involved in leaking, he makes it sound like he has principles, not just political interests. You'll have to forgive all of us who took him at his word.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
1. A bomb is not agun. Notwithstanding the definition of "well armed" "arms", I don't have a problem with the reasonable regulation of explosives.

However far out on the fringe we may find ourselves, at least Ty has received an answer to his questioned boundaries of the 2nd amendment.

Ty, I doubt Penske will ever truly answer your question about flamethrowers, if only because he carries one in the trunk of his car.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Except that it was a nefarious plot . . . just not an illegal one.

I forget, are you in the "as long as it's legal, it's moral" camp with Penske?

No. It's the "as long as it's legal, it's moral, if it's done by a Republican, and the 'legal' part really isn't all that necessary either" camp.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When the President says he'll fire people involved in leaking, he makes it sound like he has principles, not just political interests. You'll have to forgive all of us who took him at his word.

I'm sorry, Ty, but this is bullshit. There is no way you took Bush at his word.

Substitute "them" for "us", okay?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I have heard from somewhat credible, albeit liberal (although not leftwingnutty like Sidd, no offence), that she has expressed certain not so politically correct sentiments in chambers. I have no way of knowing if this is true or not (YMMV) and she is number 14 or 15 on my list and thus qualified by my standard; however I would rather see Janice Rodgers Brown or Edith Jones.

One point of concern, Edith Clement is so low on my list because I am concerned she may be a stealth Souter.

Her bio is:

Born in Birmingham in 1948. Received her bachelor's from the University of Alabama and her law degree from Tulane. She worked in private practice, specializing in maritime law, in New Orleans from 1975 to 1991, when President George H.W. Bush nominated her to the U.S. court for Louisiana's eastern district. She served until 2001, as chief judge in the final year, before being nominated by the second President Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. She has drawn less criticism than some of the other potential nominees but has also been less in the public eye.

Biggest concern is that her initial presidential patron was GHWB a man whose legacy is Souter, new taxes and allowing Saddam to stay in power. Not a ringing endorsement.

Further,

She has stated that the Supreme Court "has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion" and that "the law is settled in that regard."

I am not sure if that means that she wouldn't be for narrowing Roe or the right appropriately, but it's stealthy. I pray Bush stays the course and goes with Janice Rodgers Brown or Edith Jones (or a darkhorse like Priscilla Owens).

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
One point of concern, Edith Clement is so low on my list because I am concerned she may be a stealth Souter.


Biggest concern is that her initial presidential patron was GHWB a man whose legacy is Souter, new taxes and allowing Saddam to stay in power. Not a ringing endorsement.


I am not sure if that means that she wouldn't be for narrowing Roe or the right appropriately, but it's stealthy. I pray Bush stays the course and goes with Janice Rodgers Brown or Edith Jones (or a darkhorse like Priscilla Owens).

OTOH, a good sign appears, like a talking burning bush on the mount:

Still, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said that Clement's record raises "seriously troubling" questions about her commitment to protecting personal freedom. "Unless she was able to put those concerns to rest in Senate hearings, pro-choice Americans would oppose her nomination," Keenan said.

Anything NARAL's against I am for.


Sean Rushton, director of the conservative Committee for Justice (search), said that while his group is "ready for it to be any minute," making the announcement next week would give liberals like Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., a little less time to push public opinion.

Hey Sean, two words,

MARY JO KOPECHNE.

Bring to a lather, rinse, repeat.