a new low
 

You must know more about this than me, I guess.

Or her doctors.

a new low
 

Dunno why they still can't remove the feeding tube. If she's able to testify, she's able to feed herself in the week and a half until the hearing.

The Truth Comes Out
 

In his annual reports on the judiciary during the Clinton administration, Rehnquist called on Congress to knock it off. I didn't like it then and I don't really like it now, but you can't really blame the Dems for wanting payback.

The Truth Comes Out
 

Do you believe in stare decisis?

The Senate has had rules to organize itself for ever. These rules sometimes prevent individual senators, or minority blocs, from thwarting the will of the majority. This was understood to be a feature of the British parliament long before we even had the Constitution -- it's a part of our constitutional tradition in that way.

Some people think all of this can be ignored if you want to overturn the apple cart badly enough to. But they are the opposite of "conservatives." What you are proposing would be the worst kind of judicial activism if a judge were doing it.

The Truth Comes Out
 

If we could step back for a minute, we could probably agree that permitting the minority the power to block a few judges is probably a good idea, since it acts as a check and a balance upon the power of the majority. When this power is abused, it becomes a bad thing. Drawing that line is very difficult. In the past, this was less of a problem because appointments were somewhat less partisan, and because the perogatives of senators to have a hand in appointments for their own states were protected.

The Truth Comes Out
 

Senate rules are fine and all, but not if they are inconsistent with the Constitution, regardless of how long they have been in place. If we want to require 60 votes to approve a judicial nominee, that's fine, but let's first go through the process of amending the Constitution.

The Truth Comes Out
 

Cite please?

a new low
 

It's the one individual sympathetic(ish) case vs. poor people leeching off the system.

Who is paying for her endless hospitalization?

a new low
 

Pull out your pay stub . . .

a new low
 

She's on Medicaid?

a new low
 

her case has gone to the Supreme Court at least once, and Florida's supreme court several times. Do you feel the same way about death penalty cases? Free mumia? Should Congress subpoena him so he can't be put to death?

a new low
 

Presumably the hospital is eating the cost. Which is why i'd wheel her into the rotunda, with the life support equipment, plug it in, and tell Congress that their witness is ready to take questions from the Committee.

a new low
 

For long-term care? It's either Medicaid, private insurance (lucky employer!) or the family. Hospitals tend to eat emergency care, not long-term. I think. RT can probably give accurate info on this.

a new low
 

:D The same Medicaid the same Senators tried to cut yesterday.

edited:

Maybe not

It's an old article, and her fund was down to $50,000 at the time of writing, so I don't know who's paying now.

a new low
 

I'm sure they don't want it cut for *her* (or any other individual cases they know of). Just you know the waste should be cut. You know. There's gotta be waste.

Here's a good use of some fucker's money:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4339033.stm

(business man offered her husband $1 million not to take her off feeding tube)

Fucking irrational use of resources.

Yeah, blah blah, market.

The Truth Comes Out
 

They're not requiring 60 votes to approve a nominee. They're requiring 60 votes to end debate.

The Truth Comes Out
 

Bilmore, take us back to those rosy, long-lost days of comity and bipartisanship before the nation knew who Robert Bork was.

a new low
 

I didn't feel like registering for the philly paper, but found this http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlawpersp...29Schiavo.html which is about a year or so old, saying that both parties (husband, parents) agree she's on medicaid -- but the cost is pretty low, as medical care goes.

The Truth Comes Out
 

The practical effect is the same.

The Truth Comes Out
 

I guess he's forgotten about Abe Fortas

a new low
 

This one from today confirms that it's generally free care at a hospice and Medicaid, though there is about $50k left from the malpractice suit.

a new low
 

What is with you and the registering sites?

Nothing is free -- someone's gotta be paying for it. TNSTAAFL.

The Truth Comes Out
 

The practical effect of a lot of things is to thwart the will of a majority of senators, but that does not make those things unconstitutional, not when they are a part of a tradition of parliamentary rules that have been around since long before the Constitution was even drafted.

The Truth Comes Out
 

I didn't say non-partisan, I said less partisan. I haven't forgotten about the switch in time that saved nine, either.

The Truth Comes Out
 

and the fillibusters to prevent judicial votes is just a rule that the Senate had been saving up for some 200 odd years just waiting to try out?

The Truth Comes Out
 

has the rule ever had any exceptions?

a new low
 

Death penalty cases? Yeah, generally. There ain't no do-overs.Socialist. The government can't do everything. Pay for your own mumias.

State institution in jeaporday
 

Via Dos Centavos.

a new low
 

Thiught I read her $$ were exhausted, which kicked in Medicare/aide (don't know the diff) and one argument was, with the payment responsibilities her hubby would then take on, that was one of his reasons for the push.

The Truth Comes Out
 

It would be fun to watch you try that sort of argument in a court. "Your Honor, I don't think the Supreme Court has ever addressed that argument in the context of a case brought by a man named Melvin, like my client."

Fillbusters have been around for ever. If they haven't been used on judicial nominees, it's only because the Senate had other rules that were used to block the up-or-down vote instead.

State institution in jeaporday
 

They could make a movie about this!

The Truth Comes Out
 

To which rules are you referring? (Filibusters haven't been around "forever". As con law goes, they're only about middle-earth-era.)

a new low
 

If she's on Medicaid (Medicare is for old people -- so we expand it w/prescription drug coverage, but don't cut it), how would her husband suddenly have payment obligations he didn't have before? Are you swallowing the kool-aid they are spoon-feeding you?

a new low
 

Memory fade. What I really read was allegation that the hubby wants her dead before the tort settlement is gone, so he can have it.

a new low
 

mmmmm, kool-aid!

(No - I remembered it wrong. See above.)

a new low
 

So why does Congress make every effort to prevent federal courts from taking any kind of jurisdiction over death penalty cases, yet rushes to create jurisdiction (of what sort I have no idea) to hear a case that is purely one of state law (what evidence of desire to die in specific circumstances is necessary) and has absolutely no federal constitutional dimension?

a new low
 

If the $1M settlement has dwindled to $50k, I'm not sure I follow how this argument is supposed to carry that much punch.

a new low
 

There's at most $50k left in there. It's basically gone.

I think her parents want her alive because they love the media attention and hob-nobbing with people like the governor. The woman's brain is apparently liquified.

The Truth Comes Out
 

You mean, like that rule that permits 10 (or so) senators on a committee could prevent a nominee from coming to the floor at all by voting no?

Heh.
 

From this blog is full of crap (not to be confused with World 'o Crap)