Shite of Get off the Pot time
 

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.

Shite of Get off the Pot time
 

PS:

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.

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.

For Ty and His Boy Josh
 

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

breaking news: the doomsday clock ticks one minute closer to the apocalypse
 

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?

CIAdate.com
 

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

breaking news: the doomsday clock ticks one minute closer to the apocalypse
 

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.

More on Filibusters
 

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!

More on Filibusters
 

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.

Shite of Get off the Pot time
 

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.

BREAKING NEWS UPDATE.......
 

http://www.drudgereport.com/siren.gif Drudge is reporting John C. Roberts. http://www.drudgereport.com/siren.gif

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

breaking news: the doomsday clock ticks one minute closer to the apocalypse
 

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.

Shite of Get off the Pot time
 

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

BREAKING NEWS UPDATE.......
 

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

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

BREAKING NEWS UPDATE.......
 

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.

Roe v Wade, RIP
 

http://www.drudgereport.com/siren.gif

John C. Roberts has been confirmed as the nominee.

http://www.drudgereport.com/siren.gif