Sounds like a good tag line for the business card.

That's right. Now I remember. DeGuerin argued that chopping up the body showed that whomever killed the guy - not saying it was his client, of course - lacked the clear thinking about what he was doing and so must have been doing it in self defense. Or something.

On the basis that the prosecutor was on a partisan witchhunt?

Roberts is in
 

78-22 was the vote to confirm, considerably higher than his predecessor.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/...ion/index.html

No word yet on the O'Connor nomination.

Roberts is in
 

rumour is Bush will anounce Priscella Owen in the morning. The dims can eat shite and die on that one!!!

Roberts is in
 

Would the babyjeebus talk like that? I don't think so.

Roberts is in
 

And THAT, my friends, is a cold-lock guarantee.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_repor...vak.robert.jpg

Roberts is in
 

Keep mocking, the Red States enjoy controlling the government.

Roberts is in
 

Word.

PTL
 

Over the past 10 weeks, many people who I did not know came up to me and offered encouragement and support. Many of them told me that I and my family was in their prayers and in their hopes.

I want to thank all of those people. I will need, in the months and years ahead, that encouragement and those prayers.

Amen. And the babyjesuschristsuperstar and the legions of the unborn lambs smiled.

Roberts is in
 

DOA. The more interesting question is how long he pushes that nomination, given that if he doesn't get someone confirmed by Thanksgiving, he might not get someone in this term. And that means a new Senate to deal with some time in 2007.

PTL
 

When I clicked that link, I was fully expecting to find another fawning [yawning] article about Cindy Sheehan

Roberts is in
 

1. Not DOA.

2. Janice Rogers Brown is the fallback. There is no way she goes down.

3. What does the 2007 mean? There is no Senate in session for the whole of 2006? I am missing something? What year is this?

PTL
 

The devil smiles on her.

Plame
 

So, Miller is going to talk, and apparently the person she talked to about Plame was I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/po...pagewanted=all

Novak's column was July 14. Miller talked to Cheney's chief of staff on July 8. Does anyone know when the conversation between Rove and Cooper occurred? I couldn't find it after looking for all of five minutes on cnn's site.

Is Cheney's chief of staff a "member of the administration"? or whatever the term Bush used.

why does the left hate America?
 

Cindy Sheehan.............Many Americans, myself included, now see her as a person who has come to enjoy the celebratory status accorded to her by the radicals on the extreme left who see America as the outlaw of the world. These radicals are not content to be constructive critics. They are bent on destroying this country.



http://www.teampointless.com/apictures/cindy.jpg

Roberts is in
 

JRB is even DerOA.

If it gets past thanksgiving, the Dems will smell blood. They can stall all spring, figuring O'Connor is better than the alternative. Given Frist, DeLay, and now, given Miller's flip, Rove, the D's will smell even more blood for fall 2006, and will stall even further, until after the elections, hoping they'll get a majority.

Roberts is in
 

Oh baloney, that strategy will not work. The average American doesnt give a rat's arse about Delay or Frist/HCA or Judith Miller. Are the dims going to fillibuster? And you think the Reps won't go nucular?

And I look forward to the dimwits trying to sink a sharecroppers daughter. Good luck. Tell me which Republicans will go against JRB, with a chance to expose the Dems as the racist plantation party that they are.

You are just scared of fight. Bush made the babyjesuschristsuperstar a promise and now its time to pay up.

Roberts is in
 

I think that the Democrats will absolutely filibuster either Judge Owen or Judge Brown. I think that they will force the GOP to pull the trigger on the "nuclear option" if W really wants either of those two so badly.

The strategic value of the 78-22 vote for Roberts (i.e over half the Dems supporting) is that it gives the party much more credibility when they try to block a true radical.

I agree that the decision to switch Roberts to CJ was the signal that Bush was going to go even more "conservative" with the O'Connor replacement to try to drastically shift the current status quo on the Court. The real question is, can he get it done.

As the Big Daddy of the babyjesus christ superstar has told us, Penske, "as ye sow, so shall ye reap."

S_A_M

P.S. The average American may not care about Delay, but many of the average Americans who follow the news know that a big fish in the GOP leadership has been charged with a felony. That can't help the GOP. Frist may well have lied like a rug -- we'll se how that turns out.

As for Miller, it depends on what she says. It resurrects an old pseudo-scandal (really can't possibly help the GOP), perhaps ties a senior GOP official into dirty tricks activity that "exposed" a CIA "covert" employee. Not good when we're fighting a war on terror. The average Joe now remembers none of that bad shit about Ambassador Wilson that Bilmore, et al. so assiduously kept us abreast of. Also -- if Bush doesn't actually fire whoever was responsible (whih he hasn't and won't) -- makes him look like a fucking hypocrite -- and that will get some media play. Doesn't help.

Roberts is in
 

This is the bottom line, forgetting about all of the other stuff. The Court is huge legacy and Bush knows it. He also knows he owes the babyjesuschristsuperstar for his second term (more so than the first). He has two or three bites at the apple. Throw Owen to the wolves, fine. Janice Rogers Brown comes up. The bottom line is the first black woman is goign to resonate. Average Americans think Sharpton and Jackson are radicals and will be tired of the rancor after Owen. Worst case JRB goes down. Edith Jones. Bush will conservatise the seat. Note it here, for attribution later.

What's the reap, we get Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the court? How much more liberal can a future Dem go?

I have faith
 

that the Democrats will figure out a way to fuck this up:

Plame
 

From that article:

Now, if this article had been printed in - oh, I dunno, say the WaPo - then it makes sense.

The NYT and its editors know all about Miller's involvement. That's the whole fucking point of the story. For the NYT to then print an article claiming ignorance like this is a new fucking low, even for them.

Calame is going end up having a stroke soon

Roberts is in
 

This is why he's surprising everyone and going with McConnell or my boy Luttig

Concur, but

Let me know when a "radical" makes the list. I haven't seen Professor Yoo on the short list - and I have no problem with him either (unlike some Bezerkely grad I know ;-) )

Disagree. Rehnquist was dead and the Court needed a new CJ ASAP. Roberts was a shoo-in (and is young). Made perfect sense to switch him to the CJ opening.

Whereas Sandy has agreed to stick around until her successor is confirmed. Getting Roberts in there today and maintaining a pseudo 5-4 majority was far more important than having a 4-4 next term with a pending appointment fight.

When Wolf Blitzer starts discussing on his show how the complaint suggests no proof of impropriety, you know that this is going to burn out really quickly.

If she implicates Scooter, as the "independent NYT" now tells us, the MSM will be flooded with reminders that Scooter filed a waiver years ago. Tempest in a teapot. And no indictments. Still.

He didn't leak and Miller never wrote a story. Won't hurt either.

I swear to God, I did not get this from the Onion
 

This speaks for itself. I have nothing to ass.

From msn.com

Roberts is in
 

I was referring to the potential use of the "nuclear option" and the reverberations in future Congresses as the minority party in the Senate is essentially emasculated.

But on judicial nominations -- you can get a lot more liberal than Ginsburg -- maybe some Dem President could install a reverse ideological counterpoint to JRB or Owen -- say someone with the philosophy of a Dershowitz or Estrich? Or the 9th Cir. becomes once again a preparatory ground for the S.Ct?

You usually hear this from the weaker party, but it is true, that our system does benefit in the long run from a certain amount of compromise -- which requires more than a "reacharound" as Bush is humping the Dems in the rear.

S_A_M

I swear to God, I did not get this from the Onion
 

As a drunk, it is my expert opinion that we cannot afford any more ex-drunks in public office. No more Wagon stops on the Hill or White House.

Roberts is in
 

Luttig would be confirmed (and probably not filibustered). It would be a smart move for Bush, and a darn shame.


I would consider someone who believes that Lochner was wrongly decided to be a bit of a radical, and at least somewhat outside the mainstream of current judicial thought.

I agree it made perfect sense, and you may be right about the reason. We'll see.

We'll see. I think that there would not have been an indictment unless Earle was pretty sure he could elicit testimony against Delay from one of the co-conspirators. That wouldn't necessarily happen at this stage. As someone said already, it will take such testimony to convict.


We'll see. The guy may be waiting to seek the papers until after he has all the testimony he wants, to sdee how it all shapes up.


S_A_M

DeLay
 

Well, at least one Republican pundit agrees things aren't so great for DeLay.

• At the White House, the president's chief spokesman, Scott McClellan, expressed support for Mr. DeLay, telling reporters, "Mr. DeLay is a good ally and a leader who we have worked closely with for the good of the American people.'' "The president's view is to let the legal process work," Mr. McClellan said. "There's a legal process and we're going to let it work.''

Translation: Good luck with that who thing down in Texas, Mr. DeLay. Been nice knowin' ya.

Roberts is in
 

Yeah, the strategy worked so well with Clarence Thomas. Everyone* thought him a more than capable replacement for Thurgood Marshall.


BTW, SAM, the rub on JRB is that she thought Lochner was correctly decided, and that West Coast Hotel v. Parrish was wrong to overrule it (or that case, along with others).



*other than the 48 senators voting against.

Roberts is in
 

Yes, indeed. I meant to say it that way (the first part) but got crossed up.

P.S. Slave -- Who knows what it will all shape up to mean, but it sees likely that Judith Miller was talking to Scooter Libby. She apparently did not accept that his first, written waiver was voluntary because it came "from lawyers." (Idiot.) He spoke to her by phone a couple weeks ago to assure her it really was voluntary, and that she didn't have to sit in jail on his account.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/...eak/index.html

Roberts is in
 

I do not know the history of JRB or the context in which she said these things, but I have a certain respect for a conservative who is willing to stand up for Lochner.

After all, the constitution specifically says that "No state... shall pass any ... law impairing the Obligation of Contract", and that seems to be an individual right that is specifically protected. That must mean something.

While in my personal view the balancing of rights would favor protective legislation in cases like Lochner, I do think some weight should be given to the counterbalancing right, and it is just a question of how much.

Roberts is in
 

Good point. Now there's a name for the "where are they now" files. I'll try to google him and see what I come up with.

Roberts is in
 

I do not believe he is doing much these days. He found a cushy job where he can kick back and avoid serious thought, and let others do the heavy lifting.

Roberts is in
 

I don't think the Contracts clause gets you much of anywhere for substantive due process. That's focused on ex post changes to teh terms of contracts, not ex ante limitations upon them.

Now, the privileges and immunities clause both in Art. IV and the 14th amendment should get your somewhere, but, since slaughterhouse and Parrish, don't.

Roberts is in
 

If you think neither the Court, Thomas, Bush 41, or the Senate was not damaged by that, you are not paying attention.

Roberts is in
 

If he were a liberal, you would be accused of being a racist.

Roberts is in
 

I'll let you and the Captain sort that out, but his original comment did remind me of a separate point.

I have not followed Thomas very closely during his time on the court, but vaguely recall reading reports that (a) he somewhat inexplicably remains completely silent during oral arguments, and (b) votes reliably in Scalia's shadow, but OTOH (c) has on occasion written opinions/dissents that are thoughtful in nature -- though I've not read them myself.

Are these impressions accurate?

Roberts is in
 

On (a), it's not inexplicable. I recall he explained that 1) he's never been much of an oralist and 2) he personally gets more from reading the briefs than asking tendentious questions.

on (b), I think some study showed he actually has voted more frequently with Rehnquist of late than Scalia

on (c) Yes, although I can't cite one, his opinions have not been universally derided, but sometimes have been good.

Roberts is in
 

BTW, how about William Bennett?

• "But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down, . . . [although that is] an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down."

Roberts is in
 

Yes. He is also known to sit in the Mall, dressed incognito as a tourist, across from girls sunning themselves, and stroke himself subtly underneath a newspaper. Secret service have found him there numerous times, most famously when he was dragged into an oral argument on Nebraska’s partial birth abortion statute in a golf visor and wraparound shades, moaning audibly and swaggering through the aisles to the panel bench with an intimidating erection poking his robe forward.