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

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I get bombarded pretty regularly by the RNC, asking me to have a lunch with Cheney or some such stuff for only a few thousand dollars dedicated to the defeat of those old meanie heathenous Democrats, even though I've never given a dime to the RNC.

As you've no doubt gathered, I'm more sympathetic to the Democratic Party, yet I've never been solicited by the stuff that so clearly intrudes upon your solitude.

You should check your surfing habits, or something.

Slave's obviously given more money to the Democrats than we have.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Slave's obviously given more money to the Democrats than we have.

Partisan hack! Partisan hack!

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
She suggested his name; it wasn't her decision to send him.

I suggested that Bush nominate Mike McConnell (#4 on Penske's list!) to the Supreme Court, but that doesn't mean it's my call.

Yes! Indeed! I believe that we are bridging the ideological divide, in part, because, when push comes to shove, you reject the racially and ideologically divisive and marxist politics of personal destruction of Kleagle Byrd, Manslaughterer Ted and the ex-Rapist-in-Chief.


Ebony and ivory.........

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Partisan hack! Partisan hack!

Slave's kitchen is in the Four Seasons Niger!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

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..

Isnt't that the best type? Closet conservative.

The game now is all about insider information. Find someone who is a closeted conservative (or liberal) whose record reflects mainstream views. Meanwhile, get confident that your line to the clerks and so forth reveals a better view of the person (obviously the intelligence sources screwed up on Souter). Her saying Roe is the law of the land is pretty unremarkable, which is why Edith Jones's dissent was so remarkable. No circuit court judge should think otherwise--they're not in a position to overrule it, so why bother saying otherwise?

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The wonderboy of the right wrote a book, which is full of insights like "For liberals, premarital sex is less morally repugnant than smoking or hunting."

Fuck yeah, Virgin Ben.

Heh. That statement tickles me because it ... works on several different levels. It is a succinct summary of the cultural rift, and quite hilarious when you can't bring yourself to find the idea of any of sex, smoking or hunting "morally repugnant."

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Heh. That statement tickles me because it ... works on several different levels. It is a succinct summary of the cultural rift, and quite hilarious when you can't bring yourself to find the idea of any of sex, smoking or hunting "morally repugnant."

My guess is that he refers to vaginas as tampon holders when speaking in private.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
As I recall, the GOP had the Senate at least half the time, so a filibuster would hardly be necessary.

I guess your answer is no.

I know you love the word "smear". When can we expect the "smearing" from the Left? 9:03 EST? Or will they have the decency to wait until 9:04 EST?

Don't you think that depends on who he puts up? I mean, some people will complain no matter what happens, but some are waiting to see. Penske seems to have my proxy on Clement -- is there any remarkable about her other than that she seems to be confirmable?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Didn't this have bipartisan support?

If so, wouldn't that suggest even moreso that the filibuster isn't unconstitutional?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If so, wouldn't that suggest even moreso that the filibuster isn't unconstitutional?

As I understand it, and I may have the facts wrong, Fortas did not have support in the full Senate, which was then controlled by the Dems, so the filli was bipartisan. I don't think this sheds any light on the question of constitutionality. Why would it? It's constitutional because we did it before?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
As I understand it, and I may have the facts wrong, Fortas did not have support in the full Senate, which was then controlled by the Dems, so the filli was bipartisan.

I think your facts are wrong. The Republicans tried to filibuster Fortas, and failed. There may have been some Dems joining them, but I would doubt it, since Fortas was a pal of LBJ's.

I don't think this sheds any light on the question of constitutionality. Why would it? It's constitutional because we did it before?

Exactly. Did you miss Con Law? The fact that it's been done indicates that it's OK, unless you -- like Clarence Thomas -- don't believe in stare decisis. Which is a very strange thing for a "conservative" to say, since it's the polar opposite of conservatism. A respect for precedent, and for the fact that the filibuster has been around for a long time, would ordinarily lead "conservatives" to accept its constitutionality.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
, Fortas did not have support in the full Senate, which was then controlled by the Dems, so the filli was bipartisan.

Your facts don't necessarily support your conclusion. To wit, if you reversed the situation (R's controlled) and made the same claim, would you conclude the filibuster is bipartisan? If so, how would you reconcile that with teh current situation in the Senate?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Isnt't that the best type? Closet conservative.

The game now is all about insider information. Find someone who is a closeted conservative (or liberal) whose record reflects mainstream views. Meanwhile, get confident that your line to the clerks and so forth reveals a better view of the person (obviously the intelligence sources screwed up on Souter). Her saying Roe is the law of the land is pretty unremarkable, which is why Edith Jones's dissent was so remarkable. No circuit court judge should think otherwise--they're not in a position to overrule it, so why bother saying otherwise?

Burger, your rationale dooms us to repeat Souter. Remember when Sununu said he was a conversative?!?!?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think your facts are wrong. The Republicans tried to filibuster Fortas, and failed. There may have been some Dems joining them, but I would doubt it, since Fortas was a pal of LBJ's.

I'll have to check my facts

Exactly. Did you miss Con Law? The fact that it's been done indicates that it's OK, unless you -- like Clarence Thomas -- don't believe in stare decisis. Which is a very strange thing for a "conservative" to say, since it's the polar opposite of conservatism. A respect for precedent, and for the fact that the filibuster has been around for a long time, would ordinarily lead "conservatives" to accept its constitutionality.

I understand that stare decisis applies to court decisions, but I didn't know it applies to actions prior to being challenged. This seems wrong to me. And I am not a conservative.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Your facts don't necessarily support your conclusion. To wit, if you reversed the situation (R's controlled) and made the same claim, would you conclude the filibuster is bipartisan? If so, how would you reconcile that with teh current situation in the Senate?

I didn't mean my statement as a causal connection.