a new low
 

I couldn't agree with you more. However, as Huey Long said, politics is entertainment.

a new low
 

This is essentially our board motto.

The Truth Comes Out
 

OK. I was just keeping things going while we wait for club to finish reading through Madison and Hamilton's thoughts on the subject.

a new low
 

(a) There was an actual trial, where the judge had to make specific findings of fact that it was, in fact, her wish not to be kept alive by a feeding/hydration tube. All sorts of people testified, including her parents (if memory serves).

(b) At some point in the proceedings, the court appointed a guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem's job was to act on her behalf.

Why are you at a stupid bar that has a no-guy area but lets guys be in the no-guy area? JESUS that is fucked up.

I'm taking my fucked-up uses of scarce resources frustration out on you and your friend.

a new low
 

That's fine. But if I had STPed, then I would have seen that fringey was making a rhetorical point, and I wouldn't have bothered responding.

a new low
 

Word.

The Truth Comes Out
 

Actually, you "acknowledged that" in the course of arguing that the Constitution's inclusion of supermajority requirements in a variety of circumstances creates a presumption that elsewhere, simple majorities are ok.

As far as the applicability of the case, well, yeah -- I think the "blog" you warmly reference acknowledged that the analogy was clearly to state governments. The case revolved around the applicability of the 14th amendment which, I'll concede, doesn't talk about internal Senate rules. If you don't like reference to dicta in the absence of cases on point, just say so.

So now I get to go fight traffic in hopes of getting home before the storm total hits a foot.

Wee.

The Truth Comes Out
 

Ummm, my argument would be "Your Honor, I don't think the Supreme Court has ever addressed that argument in the context of a case brought by a dog, like my client."

We're talking different species here, not names. I know you'd try and counter with "all species come from the same single-cell", but we already know you have gaps in that chain.

This victory over Ty's rhetoric was published as non-precedential, you need not stand in awe for awhile gazing at it

The Truth Comes Out
 

Well that's the last time I STP.

My primary objections are two fold. One is the implicit notion that had the founders wanted to provide for something other than a simple majority they would have done so. The second is that I think it's one thing to give weight to Senate rules and precedent in how its handles its internal business and another thing to permit those rules to impede on the Constitutional responsbilities of another branch of government.

But I understand your argument. You are essentially saying that how the Senate advises and consents is its own business. I just don't agree when it comes to appointments.

The Truth Comes Out
 

Is a vote for cloture when what's being debated is a nomination fundamentally different (different species, phylum, etc.) than a vote for cloture when what's being debated is a piece of legislation? Give me a break.

The Truth Comes Out
 

You and the other conservatives raising holy hell on this issue would be a whole lot more believable if you had objected on constitutional grounds when Orrin Hatch let Jesse Helms use a blue slip to block the nomination of Clinton judicial nominees. I'm sure that was completely unconstitutional, too, and it's just a matter of historical accident that no one noticed until the GOP regained the presidency.

Look, if the Senate Republicans want to stick it to the minority party by changing the rules, they should just do it, and accept the consequences -- political, legislative, etc. -- instead of pretending that this has anything to do with the Constitution. What a load of crap. It's a variant of judicial activism, all in the name of installing judicial activists on the bench.

Just so long as we're clear that this has more to do with wanting Bush to get his way on judicial appointments than with any principle of constitutional interpretation one might think of.

The Truth Comes Out
 

Ummm- did you have Con Law at Florida Coastal?

Congress- main duty----- Legislate

Senate- secondary duty----- call bullshit on the Prez' nominations for judge IF necessary.

give you a break? I'd say you got your break when Sidd hired you.

The Truth Comes Out
 

1. I am not a conservative
2. I already acknowledged that I thought Hatch was equally wrong.
3. How is this judicial activism?

The Truth Comes Out
 

If your argument sounds like a dog and smells like a dog, it's a dog.

The Truth Comes Out
 

so they should have an entirely different set of rules for nominations?

The Truth Comes Out
 

change the rules to get the desired result.

The Truth Comes Out
 

1. No -- you're proposing something profoundly unconservative.

2. That's why I asked about stare decisis. Because in our legal tradition, people who interpret the law -- constitutional or otherwise -- are supposed to at least pretend to heed how others before them have construed the law. But just saying "Hatch was equally wrong" doesn't do that. The fact that Hatch acted that way years ago -- as, indeed, has the Senate for all the years that it existed up to now -- demonstrates, in our system, that they the Constitution has been interpreted in a certain way. Living with the rule of law means that ordinarily, you don't just toss out the way a provision or principle has been interpreted and start from scratch again. Let me put it in terms you would understand: Suppose that property rights were up for reconsideration, soup to nuts, every time the government wanted to do something that might be a taking. Suppose you just ignore how those property rights have always been understand, and start from first principles again. Doesn't sound like the rule of law now, does it? (If you're the property owner, do you feel better when the judge says, "Oh, and I'll admit that those other judges were wrong"?)

3. I said a "variant" because the people interpreting the Constitution here are Republican Senators, not judges. But they are at pretending to be construing the law, not just making it up, although I think we all know better. Republicans usually at least profess to be bent out of shape when judges locate new meanings in constitutional principles that hitherto have never been understand that way before. Unless you found something from Madison or Hamilton that you haven't been telling us about, that's what's happening here.

Abe Fortas
 

Since club, mentioned Abe Fortas, here's something from today's WaPo, via The Carpetbagger's Report:

• Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) told his panel this month that the judicial battles have escalated, "with the filibuster being employed for the first time in the history of the Republic." Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said in a Senate speech last week, "The crisis created by the unprecedented use of filibusters to defeat judicial nominations must be solved."
  
  Such claims, however, are at odds with the record of the successful 1968 GOP-led filibuster against President Lyndon B. Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortas to be chief justice of the United States. "Fortas Debate Opens with a Filibuster," a Page One Washington Post story declared on Sept. 26, 1968. It said, "A full-dress Republican-led filibuster broke out in the Senate yesterday against a motion to call up the nomination of Justice Abe Fortas for Chief Justice."
  
  A New York Times story that day said Fortas's opponents "began a historic filibuster today." As the debate dragged on for four days, news accounts consistently described it as a full-blown filibuster intended to prevent Fortas's confirmation from reaching the floor, where a simple-majority vote would have decided the question.

That site also has the details about how Frist participated in a fillibuster of a Clinton nominee, Richard Paez, a few years ago.

Abe Fortas
 

So it was a "real" fillibuster in that it shut down Congress and some gasbags had to keep talking for hours on end until they had to pee.

Abe Fortas
 

I'm all for requiring that fillibusters be what slave calls "real fillibusters." Make 'em keep debating.

Abe Fortas
 

When we start interpreting the Constitution according to Frank Capra's vision, rather than the framers' original intent or what's in the text, I'm sure that will be required.

http://www.bfi.org.uk/images/showing...washington.jpg

Abe Fortas
 

Well, common law, common wisdom, not so different as one might think ...

BR(also in favor of making millionaire sr. citizen gasbags stay up for days on end to stick it to the man - who knows, maybe after they lose their seats and return to private practice they'll think twice about forcing their associates into all nighters?)C

The Truth Comes Out
 

Weak.

Here's the truth: "Senate -- additional duty -----call bullshit on the Prez' nominations for judge IF THEY WANT TO." The Senate is free to advise and consent (or withold consent) in any manner they wish.

Your distinction is based on the premise that the Senate must serve as handmaidens to the Executive in judicial appointments (as opposed to while legislating).

Not so. Both are legislative functions under the Constitution. The Exec. and Legislative are co-equal branches of government -- and if the Pres. can't convince the Senate under whatever rules the Senate uses, the President loses that round.

S_A_M

The Truth Comes Out
 

Is this a debate about whether this is legal? Or just historically polite? A lot of these posts seem to hit cross-purposes.

The Constitution contains the (relative) unchangables. Everything else must be interpreted according to those precepts, but can vary as long as the Constitution is given its due. We've had rule changes before - that's how we got filibusters in the first place.

Is such a rule change civil? Maybe not. But both parties have had their very uncivil moments, so this is nothing new, nor is it particularly a badge of dishonor for any one side. It's in the nature of such a body to tussle procedurally, and to take power as the votes allow.

We all know that this is the runup to the SC appointments coming up. By itself, the rule change isn't that tough of a concept, but given the probable retirements, it's a critical one, and thus the enraged attention. But, I hope people remember that things cycle.

If they do change the rule, I truly hope that they do not then use it to appoint the most radically right SC justices they can find. At some point, Dems will rule once again, and it would be nice if there was some feeling, at least, that moderation prevailed over advantage. Otherwise, we're into a hundred year war.

The Truth Comes Out
 

I think we were arguing about the constitutionality fig leaf that Frist is going to put on his rectal probing of Senate Democrats. Of course he can do it -- he's a man -- but he shouldn't pretend he's not fucking them up the ass.

OK, that was maybe too much to drink with dinner.

The Truth Comes Out
 

The ass-fucking baton just cycles back and forth, and every new ream seems like the worst ever. This, too, shall pass.

The Truth Comes Out
 

I am resigned to the ass-fucking, but I wish they would stop pretending that it's anything else. None of this "fillibusters are unconstitutional" shit. Let's here Frist say, Reid, why don't you have a couple drinks and grab the lube, 'cause I'm comin' in.

The Truth Comes Out
 

You know being President is like being married- you get to put them/it in. It's like a right or something.

The Truth Comes Out
 

You told me you were married.

The Truth Comes Out
 

Is this the only senate rule that takes a super-majority? If not, are all of the others unconstitutional too?

Does the Senate do anything that isn't a "Constitutional responsibility?"

a new low
 

Thankfully, I got Pat Robertson's take on this issue, so I am now fully informed.

Turns out its the doctors who want her dead, 'cause there's lots o' money in "harvesting her organs." Who knew? The probably is capitalism. And, of course, evil, money grubbing doctors who are undoubtedly liberals anyway.

a new low
 

That explains the parents (it has to be incredibly hard), but what is Dan Burton's excuse?

a new low
 

I know you are being sarcastic, but it brings up a very relevant point. Her organs could save a lot of lives, and increase the quality of many other lives. So who in this debate is really conscerned about life. I have left directions with my parents that if I can be even slightly compared to a vegetable (which in my case may not even be much of a stretch right now) then I want my life line pulled and all my organs given away. Since I ain't getting no nobel prizes, I figure hey, if I give an organ to somebody who does, I could get partial credit. I won't have any use for them anyway.

a new low
 

Frankly, that was exactly my reaction to Mr. Robertson's lament. Not only is it unlikely that Ms. Schiavo's physician would not personally profit from her organ donation, but that donation also could save several lives.

a new low
 

You're probably right about the capitalism part. Out of her million dollar malpractice settlement, turns out almost $600,000 has been paid for - her care? - her docs? - no, hubby's lawyer.

a new low
 

Out of ignorance, dare I ask what you're talking about? Don't make me try to figure it out with Google . . . .

a new low
 

Another board motto?

Yeah, I was unclear. Conversation with Florida counsel tells me that the reason her settlement fund is almost exhausted isn't because they've spent so much on her care. Husband has been allowed by the court to use those funds to pay for his team of lawyers working to get her unplugged. Trust records show that aproximately $574,000 has been paid out to his team of lawyers.

Note again that everyone here should go fill out a HCDPOA.

Florida: the sad legacy of liberalism
 

What the hell is up in Florida? First the Lunsford kidnapping and killing by a known sex-offender and now the conspiracy to kill Terri Schiavo, which is being assisted by the Democrats?

Is this what the liberal agenda in our society has wrought, the weakest among us, the children and the infirm cast aside, whilst we protect and champion the evildoers?

It is ironic that the same left wing amoral degenerates fighting to see Terri Schiavo murdered will be the exact same sickos who sit in on candle-light vigils to protest the pervert Couey's eventual death sentence. A morally sound society would have shackled up Michael Schiavo years ago and put his ill-gotten gains in trust for his wife's care rather than paying the sleazeball lawyers to find a way to get the state to assist in her murder, while such a same morally healthy society would put a bullet in Coueys head years ago. Instead the innocent die, evil proliferates and the liberals consolidate the destruction of our society.

Am I the only one who thinks it is time to kick Florida out of the union. Let it be a separate country for the moral degenerates. Perhaps it could unite with Castro's Cuba.