Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
I thought it was brilliant. They'd tried everything they could think of to stop the disconnect, and kept getting shot down. Now, they subpoena her for some unspecified future day of testimony, and federal law makes it a crime to interfere with the ability of the person to appear in response.

Brilliantly evil?

For a party that rails against the interference by a minority with judicial selection, perhaps the fact that they can't get a bill passed with a simple majority should be a lesson.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
From my girl Ann:

• How many people have to die before the country stops humoring feminists? Last week, a defendant in a rape case, Brian Nichols, wrested a gun from a female deputy in an Atlanta courthouse and went on a murderous rampage. Liberals have proffered every possible explanation for this breakdown in security except the giant elephant in the room – who undoubtedly has an eating disorder and would appreciate a little support vis-à-vis her negative body image.
  
  The New York Times said the problem was not enough government spending on courthouse security ("Budgets Can Affect Safety Inside Many Courthouses"). Yes, it was tax-cuts-for-the-rich that somehow enabled a 200-pound former linebacker to take a gun from a 5-foot-tall grandmother.
  
  Atlanta court officials dispensed with any spending issues the next time Nichols entered the courtroom when he was escorted by 17 guards and two police helicopters. He looked like P. Diddy showing up for a casual dinner party.
  
  I think I have an idea that would save money and lives: Have large men escort violent criminals. Admittedly, this approach would risk another wave of nausea and vomiting by female professors at Harvard. But there are also advantages to not pretending women are as strong as men, such as fewer dead people. Even a female math professor at Harvard should be able to run the numbers on this one.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/a...20050317.shtml

I think perhaps the problem was more likely the grandma was unwilling to use the weapon herself on a timely basis. It would have been nondiscriminatory, saved lives, and remarkably efficient administration of justice given the circumstances.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Just when you thought the Senate had already stooped to new lows of meaningless hearings called to use baseball players as an excuse for their own tv exposure, they now have called Terry Schiavo, yes the brain dead one, to testify before Congress.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...maged_woman_21

If I'm the husband, I'm sore tempted to wheel her into the hearing room, and let her "answer" all the questions. "I think my wife should answer that" "I would have to defer to my wife" "really, she should have the last word on that".

Will she make a better witness than Mark McGwire did?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Not Bob
And, I don't speak for Ty, but I think that his comment may have been in response to Ann Coulter's cheap and factually inaccurate throw-away charge laying fault at the feet of the feminists. She obviously didn't want any of those pesky facts (like the fact that the guard didn't carry a gun) to get in the way of her larger truths. Big shock.

One of Ann's biggest flaws is that she seldom lets the facts get in the way of her opinion.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Answering both posts - best example is the firefighter situation. Strength and speed requirements were in place for years - which excluded almost all women. Court rulings started to say, requirements are thus invalid. Too much of an outcry, (because they were job-related requirements), so subsequent rulings began to change the scope and harshness of the requirements, to the point where a large percentage of the women taking the test could pass.

So, basically, there still are tests, but they pretty much just exclude the halt.

They also used to exclude the lame, but then COngress passed the ADA.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Brilliantly evil?

For a party that rails against the interference by a minority with judicial selection, perhaps the fact that they can't get a bill passed with a simple majority should be a lesson.

Well, I know little about the substance of this one, so I've avoided it quite well, but it does strike me that, stopping a death, if you truly think an injustice is about to occur, might be an inappropriate time to worry about minority status.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
I thought it was brilliant. They'd tried everything they could think of to stop the disconnect, and kept getting shot down. Now, they subpoena her for some unspecified future day of testimony, and federal law makes it a crime to interfere with the ability of the person to appear in response.

Brilliant, yet. Hypocritical, absolutely. What fucking business does the federal government have in this matter?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Will she make a better witness than Mark McGwire did?

Did you see that? I thought it was total grandstanding.

eta:

• We're at war in Iraq, at war in Afghanistan, threatened by Al Qaeda, mired in budget deficits, faced with gargantuan liabilities in Social Security and Medicare, struggling to sustain the fighting capacity of our military forces--and what does this committee think warrants its urgent attention? Whether a handful of overpaid entertainers are taking forbidden pills to improve their performance.
  
  The hearing rests on two well-worn premises that ought to offend the conservative sensibilities of Republicans, who control this committee and Congress. The first is that absolutely everything is a federal responsibility. The second is that the private sector needs incessant guidance from government.

http://www.instapundit.com

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
I thought it was brilliant. They'd tried everything they could think of to stop the disconnect, and kept getting shot down. Now, they subpoena her for some unspecified future day of testimony, and federal law makes it a crime to interfere with the ability of the person to appear in response.

How brilliant can it be? I defy any lawyer to come up with even a scintilla of evidence that she could have responded to the subpoena.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Well, I know little about the substance of this one, so I've avoided it quite well, but it does strike me that, stopping a death, if you truly think an injustice is about to occur, might be an inappropriate time to worry about minority status.

I think you may be overstating the case here, Bilmore. I don't recall Congress being granted the power to bestow immortality in the Constitution, and short of that, I fail to see how they can prevent a death.

[sgtclub]

• The dumbest member of the United States Senate, California's very own Barbara Boxer, took to the podium next, and did something remarkable. She forgot to keep up the lie. She told the truth about the strategy of the Democrats. She let what their view of the Constitution truly is. If Rose Woods, Richard Nixon's legendary secretary, worked at either MoveOn or C-span, the following part of the tape would be missing:
  
  "Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to $200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system, and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check and balance except that one confirmation vote. So we're saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn't too much to ask for such a super important position. There ought to be a super vote. Don't you think so? It's the only check and balance on these people. They're in for life. They don't stand for election like we do, which is scary."

http://www.radioblogger.com/#000539

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by bilmore
I thought it was brilliant. They'd tried everything they could think of to stop the disconnect, and kept getting shot down. Now, they subpoena her for some unspecified future day of testimony, and federal law makes it a crime to interfere with the ability of the person to appear in response.

I hope everyone who voted for this one day finds themselves immobile in a hospital bed, unable to communicate and in searing, blinding, unending pain. Fucking Pharisees.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Did you see that? I thought it was total grandstanding.

eta:

• We're at war in Iraq, at war in Afghanistan, threatened by Al Qaeda, mired in budget deficits, faced with gargantuan liabilities in Social Security and Medicare, struggling to sustain the fighting capacity of our military forces--and what does this committee think warrants its urgent attention? Whether a handful of overpaid entertainers are taking forbidden pills to improve their performance.
  
  The hearing rests on two well-worn premises that ought to offend the conservative sensibilities of Republicans, who control this committee and Congress. The first is that absolutely everything is a federal responsibility. The second is that the private sector needs incessant guidance from government.

http://www.instapundit.com

I saw some of the questions asked by Christopher Shays, and was appalled. It's not the place of private business or a union to enforce the laws against drug abuse. I mean, MLB probably should try to do something about it, since it affects the integrity of the game, but that's a business decision. It's not like they're deputized to prosecute drug offenders.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I saw some of the questions asked by Christopher Shays, and was appalled. It's not the place of private business or a union to enforce the laws against drug abuse. I mean, MLB probably should try to do something about it, since it affects the integrity of the game, but that's a business decision. It's not like they're deputized to prosecute drug offenders.

MLB and the players union have handled this poorly as well. I actually stopped watching baseball after the 94 strike, and part of the reason was roids. When Brady Anderson comes in 30 pounds heavier and hits 50 HRs, you know juicing is running rampant.

But there are far more important things for Congress to focus on than roids in baseball.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub

• The dumbest member of the United States Senate, California's very own Barbara Boxer, took to the podium next, and did something remarkable. She forgot to keep up the lie. She told the truth about the strategy of the Democrats. She let what their view of the Constitution truly is. If Rose Woods, Richard Nixon's legendary secretary, worked at either MoveOn or C-span, the following part of the tape would be missing:
  
  "Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to $200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system, and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check and balance except that one confirmation vote. So we're saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn't too much to ask for such a super important position. There ought to be a super vote. Don't you think so? It's the only check and balance on these people. They're in for life. They don't stand for election like we do, which is scary."

http://www.radioblogger.com/#000539

Since you can't deny that Republicans used various procedural devices to prevent Clinton nominees from getting an up-or-down vote, why do you marvel at the notion that Boxer wants judges to be approved by 60 votes?