The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

I agree there might be political hackery involved, I'm just asking you if it wasn't by the guys who wrote the memo. You know the ones who said a plan a court later found fine and legal- WASN"T EVEN CLOSE TO LEGAL. They were either itching a mean political streak or fucking imcompetant.

Them's the two choices, eh? I wouldn't know, because I'm not a voting rights lawyer, but I'm impressed with your unshakable conviction.

Let's talk some more about how you wanted to have the GCs of Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing and others sent to jail.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Them's the two choices, eh? I wouldn't know, because I'm not a voting rights lawyer, but I'm impressed with your unshakable conviction.

Let's talk some more about how you wanted to have the GCs of Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing and others sent to jail.

Not the GCs, i want the heads of the staff attorneys. f'ing asleep at the switch.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Them's the two choices, eh? I wouldn't know, because I'm not a voting rights lawyer, but I'm impressed with your unshakable conviction.

SAM starts with his impassioned deconstruction of how horrible the Bush DOJ is, and by inference the entire administration I suppose. SAM is horribly bothered because the political appointees at the top of the department didn't follow the memo written by the political hires. Some lawyer fighting for the Texas Dems says "The memo said is isn't a close case," how could the DOJ not follow that memo?

My short answer- the memo was wrong, turns out. If I write a memo that says the law point to X- NOT EVEN A CLOSE CASE. you think I should complain when boss man throws it away and it turns out NOT_X wins? WTF are you even arguing about? The memo writers were either biased or real hacks.

You know what DOJ management did wrong? They should have made sure the Texas plan went to recent (read Bush) hires for that memo writing.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You know what DOJ management did wrong? They should have made sure the Texas plan went to recent (read Bush) hires for that memo writing.

Agreed.

But doesn't this go to the quality of the political appointees?

[Hank Chinaski]

Am I the only person who finds it interesting the faux-intellectually elitist ivy-tower dwelling dimwits on the board trumpet every last bit of negative spin about America and yet blatently and in bald-faces ignore the good?

A new Fox News poll shows President Bush’s job approval numbers on the rebound. Bush’s approval rating jumped six points over last month’s result to 42 percent among Americans surveyed.

The Demon rats are trying to pound away at this apparent uneasiness with false attacks on the president’s credibility coming from the usual marxist and moderate-radical-Islamic-sympathising suspects, such as Senators Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Joe Biden, as well as Reps. Nancy Pelosi and, the cowardly liar, Rep. John Murtha.





Penske-style post!TM

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
SAM starts with his impassioned deconstruction of how horrible the Bush DOJ is, and by inference the entire administration I suppose. SAM is horribly bothered because the political appointees at the top of the department didn't follow the memo written by the political hires. Some lawyer fighting for the Texas Dems says "The memo said is isn't a close case," how could the DOJ not follow that memo?

Listen you motherfucking cocksucker (quite an image) -- that's not what I did at all. I also said that this is how the process works. Why are you incapable of comprehending the least bit of nuance or tolerating the least bit of disagreement?

You also continue to make up what the memorandum said -- although you clearly read my post because you've tweaked your dishonest description.

Where's _your_ vaunted intellectual honesty, what with your degree in SCIENCE and all? What is wrong with you?

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
My short answer- the memo was wrong, turns out. If I write a memo that says the law point to X- NOT EVEN A CLOSE CASE. you think I should complain when boss man throws it away and it turns out NOT_X wins? WTF are you even arguing about? The memo writers were either biased or real hacks.

Where does it say that, Hank? You keep putting that in big letters, but where is that in the memorandum?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Where does it say that, Hank? You keep putting that in big letters, but where is that in the memorandum?

from WP article

• J. Gerald "Gerry" Hebert, one of the lawyers representing Texas Democrats who are challenging the redistricting in court, said of the Justice Department's action: "We always felt that the process . . . wouldn't be corrupt, but it was. . . . The staff didn't see this as a close call or a mixed bag or anything like that. This should have been a very clear-cut case."

from the other

• Hebert said when a case is a close call staff lawyers usually include counterpoints to their conclusions in their memo. But he said there is nothing in the 73-page memo suggesting a plausible reason for approving the map. "So that raises a lot of suspicions about the motives" of the senior officials who are political appointees, he said.

It's a 73 page memo, and i ain't reading it for free. If fringey gives me a fake file to bill I'll plow though it, otherwise I'm going with this. They couldn't come up with any arguments to support it's validity- obviously someone was able to come up with some- because it was upheld. I'm done on this- I win.

Hank Chinaski

198-6

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
from WP article

• J. Gerald "Gerry" Hebert, one of the lawyers representing Texas Democrats who are challenging the redistricting in court, said of the Justice Department's action: "We always felt that the process . . . wouldn't be corrupt, but it was. . . . The staff didn't see this as a close call or a mixed bag or anything like that. This should have been a very clear-cut case."

from the other

• Hebert said when a case is a close call staff lawyers usually include counterpoints to their conclusions in their memo. But he said there is nothing in the 73-page memo suggesting a plausible reason for approving the map. "So that raises a lot of suspicions about the motives" of the senior officials who are political appointees, he said.

It's a 73 page memo, and i ain't reading it for free. If fringey gives me a fake file to bill I'll plow though it, otherwise I'm going with this. They couldn't come up with any arguments to support it's validity- obviously someone was able to come up with some- because it was upheld. I'm done on this- I win.

Hank Chinaski

198-6

Fake file? Sure. 1986-001. Go for it.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
It's a 73 page memo, and i ain't reading it for free. . . . I'm done on this- I win.

Hank Chinaski
198-6

Let's clarify. Your real answer is: "I don't know what the memorandum says, because I haven't read it. However, I know two courts disagreed with the bottom line."

You rely on the words of the plaintiff's attorney characterizing the memorandum to act as if the words you made up appeared there so that you can put those words in big type and scream about the alleged incompetence and partisanship of the attorneys who did not write those imaginary words.

Well played, sir. You should get two wins for that. Channelling SEF today?

S_A_M

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Where does it say that, Hank? You keep putting that in big letters, but where is that in the memorandum?

And as far as I can tell, the issue was only looked at once by the three judge panel, in the original review in 2004. They concluded that politics, not race drove the maps. (There is a dissent on the VRA issue on District 23.)

The original SCOTUS remand on the redistricting issue was to throw it back to the three panel judge, in light of the Court's opinion in the Pennsylvania case. I don't think that the SCOTUS ever looked at the VRA issue.

The three judge panel in the June 2005 opinon of Henderson v. Perry were looking only at whether or not the redistricting was overly partisan, not whether or not it violated the Voting Rights Act.

ETA: Reading the memo and the opinions, I forgot how complicated this area of law is. I took a VRA seminar when I was a senior in college from a non-lawyer, and I don't remember much other than it's really fucking hard to draw lines given all the considerations that have to be made. I think Molly Ivins once said that redistricting is like playing three dimentional chess.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
And as far as I can tell, the issue was only looked at once by the three judge panel, in the original review in 2004. They concluded that politics, not race drove the maps. (There is a dissent on the VRA issue on District 23.)

The original SCOTUS remand on the redistricting issue was to throw it back to the three panel judge, in light of the Court's opinion in the Pennsylvania case. I don't think that the SCOTUS ever looked at the VRA issue.

The three judge panel in the June 2005 opinon of Henderson v. Perry were looking only at whether or not the redistricting was overly partisan, not whether or not it violated the Voting Rights Act.

ETA: Reading the memo and the opinions, I forgot how complicated this area of law is. I took a VRA seminar when I was a senior in college from a non-lawyer, and I don't remember much other than it's really fucking hard to draw lines given all the considerations that have to be made. I think Molly Ivins once said that redistricting is like playing three dimentional chess.

Geez Rt it's not like the Texas legislature is giving them Mexicans and blacks small pox blankets- those guys were the real criminals.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
is Good Friday the actual day the Jews killed him?

I hate to get nitpicky here, and I don't want to look anti Italian, but the Romans killed Jesus. Crucifixion was a Roman form of execution. The Jews considered it unclean (which is what it was) so they beheaded people. So if the Jews had killed Jesus he would not have been crucified.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
is Good Friday the actual day the Jews killed him?

No - it was after Passover.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
When was he born? Given the calendar (at least the Western calendar) is keyed to the birth of Christ, why Christmas and new Year's day are not the same is beyond me.

That is an excellent questions. Wasn't isn't it Pope Gregory that came up the Calender (the modification of the Julian Calender). If you go by the Gospels then Jesus was born sometime during the Spring.

Good Friday was put on Friday so Easter could be on Sunday. The Romans changed the Sabaath from Saturday to Sunday I think to appeal to pagans. Only the Jews and the Seventh Day Adventists observe the real sabaath.