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

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Chucklehead... Will you support the first state bills to give free abortions to those who can't afford them? If not, you've no business calling yourself a Rockefeller Republican. Its only makes good economic sense. Less mouths to feed.

Sebby,

You know I love you like a strange uncle, but your chickenshite inability to take a stance is concerning me. Strap on a pair of prosthetic testicles (call Hillary, she will probably lend/lease you a set) and make your prediction.

Post now or foreever hold your piece.

[Penske_Account]

PS:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Chucklehead... Will you support the first state bills to give free abortions to those who can't afford them?

If it was at a State level, and was related to first trimester abortions or post-first term abortions where there was a greater likelihood of death or incapacity to the mother in continuing the pregnancy than naught, and my state (probably WA as I don't see myself moving for a while) had done away with its parental notice prohibition, I could probably support that.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
If not, you've no business calling yourself a Rockefeller Republican.

I don't even think one of my socks has aspired to such an affiliation and I have had pro-Hillary socks in the past. I am a REagan Republican.

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
Slave's kitchen is in the Four Seasons Niger!

We're serving sweet tea and I'd tell you some stuff but I'm sure you won't listen anyway.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Theoretically, the Executive branch could challenge. Or, a non-committee member could challenge.



I'm not sure I understand this.

Why would the executive challenge a confirmation of its candidate?

And if it's on legislation, it has a veto.

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?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

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.

Wilson has a security clearance, or did at the time, so she could tell him.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
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.

No one's said the fillibuster rule is mandatory. And the entire Senate agreed to continue with this practice. Why is the "silent filibuster" any more (or less) unconstitutional? The result is the same; the effort to get there is not. There are plenty of good arguments why it's a worse rule from a procedural standpoint, or even from a standpoint of legitimately measuring intensity of preference. But the differnece between teh two is not of a constitutional dimension.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"In 1975 the senators changed the filibuster requirement from 67 votes to 60, after concluding that it only takes a simple majority to change the rules governing their proceedings. As Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield ([D-Mont.) said at the time: ''We cannot allow a minority'' of the senators ''to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there.'' Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd and Biden all agreed."

Nearly a decade ago, Lloyd Cutler, the former White House counsel to Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, concluded that the Senate rule requiring a supermajority vote to change the rule is ''plainly unconstitutional.'"'

Not sure what your point on the first is, other than dems. But on the second, it's a different point, because it goes to the creation of the rules in the first place, not their content. I don't think anyone has said that teh nuclear option itself is somehow either unconstitutional or barred by the rules of the senate. it clearly is constitutional and consistent with the rules.

ETA: Quadro-phenia! Quad-rangular!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"In 1975 the senators changed the filibuster requirement from 67 votes to 60, after concluding that it only takes a simple majority to change the rules governing their proceedings. As Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield ([D-Mont.) said at the time: ''We cannot allow a minority'' of the senators ''to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there.'' Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd and Biden all agreed."

Nearly a decade ago, Lloyd Cutler, the former White House counsel to Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, concluded that the Senate rule requiring a supermajority vote to change the rule is ''plainly unconstitutional.'"'

You see that these two paragraphs contradict each other, no?

And the Senate rule requiring a supermajority to change the rules is something different. 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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Sebby,

You know I love you like a strange uncle, but your chickenshite inability to take a stance is concerning me. Strap on a pair of prosthetic testicles (call Hillary, she will probably lend/lease you a set) and make your prediction.

Post now or foreever hold your piece.

Make my prediction about what? SCOTUS? Why? We'll know in two hours. I'm more interested in the Rove Scandal.

Unless he nominates something with four legs or announces he's a screaming queen McGreevy-style, nothing Bush says tonight is going to kill the Rove Debacle. I'm staying on message, Penske. You fritter around debating justices. I'm still waiting for Fitz to potentially drop the big one.

I don't predict. I comment.

[Penske_Account]

Drudge is reporting John C. Roberts.

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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I believe the flag burning amendment was brought up only after a similar statute had been ruled down.

So perhaps they have a different view about the constitutionality than the Supreme Court does. It doesn't mean they don't have a view. And with Senate rules, there is no appeal to the Supreme Court.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Make my prediction about what? SCOTUS? Why? We'll know in two hours. I'm more interested in the Rove Scandal.

Unless he nominates something with four legs or announces he's a screaming queen McGreevy-style, nothing Bush says tonight is going to kill the Rove Debacle. I'm staying on message, Penske. You fritter around debating justices. I'm still waiting for Fitz to potentially drop the big one.

I don't predict. I comment.

You suck. Social decorum dictates you play along. You liberals have no manners.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

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

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

I'll bet he's in D.C.

But is this to replace O'Connor or Rehnquist? And is it sourced from Novak again?

[Penske_Account]

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

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

Born 1955 in Buffalo, N.Y. Graduate of Harvard College and Law School. Clerked for Justice Rehnquist when he was an associate justice. Was special assistant to the attorney general from 1981 to 1982, associate counsel to the Reagan White House from 1982 to 1986, and principal deputy solicitor general from 1989 to 1993. Tapped by President George H.W. Bush in 1992 for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, often regarded as a stepping stone to the high court, but the nomination stalled because of the pending election, and he subsequently joined law firm Hogan & Hartson. In his government and private roles, he argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court. Senate Democrats initially filibustered his renomination to the D.C. Circuit Court but he was confirmed in 2003. He is associated with the push by the Reagan and first Bush administrations to overturn or limit Roe v. Wade.

If this is true, it looks like the liberals will lose here. Big time.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'll bet he's in D.C.

But is this to replace O'Connor or Rehnquist? And is it sourced from Novak again?

John C. Roberts has been confirmed as the nominee.