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

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

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 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! "

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Drudge is reporting John C. Roberts.

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

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.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
I'm still waiting for Fitz to potentially drop the big one.

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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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

[SlaveNoMore]

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

ABC and CNN calling the same thing.

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

[sgtclub]

[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.

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?

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.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
ABC and CNN calling the same thing.

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

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.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sexual Harassment Panda
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! "

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

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I think we should expect that a CIA employee will refrain from using her husband in a conspiratorial partisan tinged plot to treasonously damage the Nation's war effourt and national defence. The correct response would have been to covertly liquidate the two of them, but unfortunately, the demo led Church Commission emasculated our nation's ability to effectively deal with such turncoats.

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

[Penske_Account]

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

Never.

[Sidd Finch]

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.

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.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by sgtclub
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.

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

[Sidd Finch]

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.

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.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

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

How'd that Luttig pick work out?

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

Oh well.