You have to hand it to the Catholics.......
 

Heh. No fucking way.

You have to hand it to the Catholics.......
 

All of our words-passing-in-the-night aside, I agree with this.

Wednesday funnies
 

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/Cartoons/05-18-2005.gif

(I love this guy.)

You have to hand it to the Catholics.......
 

Clearly we just don't speak the same language. I blame the public schools.

Wednesday funnies
 

Heh-heh.

Here's another --

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2005/db050511.gif

Well, I think it's very appropriate that in order to install conservative judicial activists on the federal bench, Bill Frist is willing to declare unconstitutional a Senate rule that he was using just a few years ago. This is a matter of principle, and the conservative principle here is that if the law doesn't say what conservatives want it to, we need to get rid of that law and interpret ourselves a new one.

eta:

At least Justice Janice Rogers Brown has been candid about this:

• Republicans, and their conservative allies, have been willing to make . . . lame arguments to rescue even nominees whose jurisprudence is questionable. Janice Rogers Brown, one of Bush's nominees has argued that there is properly 'an extra-constitutional dimension to constitutional law.' She has said that judges should be willing to invoke a 'higher law' than the Constitution. She has said that judicial activism is not troubling per se; what matters is the 'worldview' of the judicial activist. If a liberal nominee to the courts said similar things, conservatives would make quick work of her.

That would Ramesh Ponnuru on her.

Well, if by "the law", you mean "something that nobody seems to have voted on before", and by "we", you mean "the majority" and not "the minority" or "some activist lawyer in a Judge's robe", than, uhm, actually, yes.

Bitch, please.

link

Geshundteit.

The fact that you did something 5 years ago (or last night) does not mean that you actively considered whether it was legal in all respects of the Constitution; nor does it mean that it was in fact legal in all respects of the Constitution.

The great burden of leadership that Delay carries is that he is now in a position where he is expected to know and understand all of the rules, requirements, obligations, laws, provisions, amendments, preambles, penumbras, permutations and everything else on behalf of his constitutents, his party, and the whole U.S. of A. No more sleeping in homeroom for ole boy Bill.

And the fact that he voted for a filibuster does not mean that he had considered the underlying issue of whether filibusters of that particular type would stand up to challenge. Lots of things legislators do don't stand up to challenge. You expect they are worried about what every critic in a robe might think? No. They carry about what their constituents and contributors will think.

Take some small measure of comfort that in the year 2250, the tables will be turned on the Republicans and the Martian Cooperative will gleefully shoulder aside a filibuster attempt of this sort. Til then, bye bye baby!

Aw, c'mon. Both sides are crying "unConstitutional!!", and all of us on these boards know both sides are wrong.

Maybe you should scroll up one post and read what your compatriot says. There's still time to edit this.

I don't have compatriots. I have interests.

(Which compatriot? You mean Ty??)

Assuming the question is serious, Say Hello. He seems to believe that it is, in fact, unConsitutional, and that Frist is being honest and pure as the driven snow.

Assuming it's not serious, then Atticus. I often think you're both full of shit.


[psst-let's not go round and round again]just kidding, no offense intended[/psst-let's not go round and round again]

It was serious. I was responding to SH's belief, disagreeing with him. Frist and Reid are simply bloviating and lying, pandering to all those voters who have no effing clue what a filibuster really is, and what the Constitution says, while they play out their strategies and tactics. There's nothing unconstitutional about denying a vote through filibuster, or wiping out judicial filibusters. Similarly, there's no abridgment of freedom of speech (asshole Reid) by invoking cloture. They're just trying to spin to get the most uninformed support. Anyone who paid attention to two or three pertinent law school classes knows this. This is all simply a fight over votes, not principles, on both sides.