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

[Penske_Account]

[sgtclub]

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

get thee to the FB.

I still don't get it?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Penske_Account

needs an update. back up to 805 for 2004. All signs pointing to a run in 2008!

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I still don't get it?

MR is infamous for kissing his wife's* ass in the manner of the French, iykwim, aityd.

*and possibly those of other partners

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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]

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]

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.)]

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]

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]

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



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]

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?

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.