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

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not sure what you mean, but the Senate's use of the filibuster decades ago surely is a significant precedent, unless you decide that the way the Senate has understood things in the past is irrelevant to deciding what the Constitution means.

I don't think their understanding of things is relevant to deciding what the Constitution means.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
In my book, "nefarious" is sending your unqualified, partisan lout of a husband on the taxpayers dime to drink "sweet tea" "poolside".

Wow -- it was Plame's decision to send Wilson to that five-star resort of a country known as Niger?

Boy, she is a big evil cunt of a woman. 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."

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't think their understanding of things is relevant to deciding what the Constitution means.

But it is relevant now?

P.S. Call MR.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not in general, but I haven't seen anything on the Rove question to indicate what he did was immoral.

Morals are all relative. The issue regarding Rove is whether he did something unethical and sleazy and lowball. The issue as to the admin is whether it obstructed justice or lied to cover up Karl's dirty deed.

BUT the real issue is if this ugly little incident has enough traction and substance behind it to shame this White House into being as transparant as an Admin should be.

The real question is "Can this be the cultural/political flashpoint that rolls the wave back over Bush?" For the past two years, the Dems have pounded him on Iraq and stymied his domestic agenda. Lucky timing will allow him to reshape the Court, but will Bush's second term produce anything else? Or is this the final straw, the last of a line of small scandals, suspicions and lies which put this Admin on the defensive, running from charges for the remainder of its term, and never getting the chance to follow through on its bold agenda?

Rove won't be jailed, and whatever the violation was, its minor. But is it enough to work a chink into the teflon and leave Bush swinging in the wind like Reagan in his second term after Iran Contra started? I think it might.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't think their understanding of things is relevant to deciding what the Constitution means.

Ty or Burger could probably explain this much better than I, but don't the courts defer to Congress on how Congress chooses to conduct its business?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't think their understanding of things is relevant to deciding what the Constitution means.

Why?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
But it is relevant now?

What?

P.S. Call MR.

Huh?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why?

Because their understanding may lead to an unconstitutional result. For example, Congress' understanding of every law they pass is that it's constitutional. Most of the time they are probably right, but occassionally they get smacked down by the court. We don't get a ruling on constitutionality until it's actually challenged. So to say that fillibusters are constitutional because they have been used (but never challenged) in the past, doesn't make sense to me.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I suggest you kiss my ass

I suggest you use "arse". It sounds classier.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Because their understanding may lead to an unconstitutional result. For example, Congress' understanding of every law they pass is that it's constitutional. Most of the time they are probably right, but occassionally they get smacked down by the court. We don't get a ruling on constitutionality until it's actually challenged. So to say that fillibusters are constitutional because they have been used (but never challenged) in the past, doesn't make sense to me.

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.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Ty or Burger could probably explain this much better than I, but don't the courts defer to Congress on how Congress chooses to conduct its business?

Generally, except for activist courts, like Rehnquist, who throws out federal statutes all the time.

If you're referring to the greatest judicial dodge of all time, the "political question doctrine" then yo're definitely right.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Wow -- it was Plame's decision to send Wilson to that five-star resort of a country known as Niger?

Boy, she is a big evil cunt of a woman. 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."

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.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The GOP is better off working the best fact it has - "Rove did not out a CIA operative in violation of the law." That is true. Why don't they just keep ramming it home?

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.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub


Huh?

:yum:

get thee to the FB.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Because their understanding may lead to an unconstitutional result. For example, Congress' understanding of every law they pass is that it's constitutional. Most of the time they are probably right, but occassionally they get smacked down by the court. We don't get a ruling on constitutionality until it's actually challenged. So to say that fillibusters are constitutional because they have been used (but never challenged) in the past, doesn't make sense to me.

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.