coff
Ack
::Scott has just keeled over and died. In his inventory was one bucket, half-full of well water, one dipper, a damn-fine beer, a single scoop serving of ice cream, and a sword.::
'taste, TASTE!!…does this well-water taste…tangy?", not 'tasty… tangy?" :smack:
Jeez…one simple line and I manage to screw it up
Oh well, better an honorable adversary than a dishonorable ally. … RIP, your honor.
Did anyone else hear the “reporter” today on MSNBC talking about this?
He said that with Rehnquist gone and O’Connor retiring, Bush would have an unprecedented two vacancies to fill – or three, depending on how you do the math, because Rehnquist was Chief Justice.
Three? WTF? Whether or not one of them is Chief Justice, there are still just two openings, aren’t there?
Bad math aside, how is the Chief Justice chosen? Is it by seniority, or do the other justices elect one, or does Bush appoint one to be the Chief?
The CJ is chosen in exactly the same way as any other federal judge. The president sends the nomination to the Senate for its advice and consent. The president is free to appoint anyone he chooses; it does not have to be one of the existing associate justices. Indeed, only three CJs were AJs at the time of their appointments.
If it were by seniority then John Paul Stevens, the Court’s last remaining old-guard liberal, would be CJ. Now wouldn’t that be something.
Oh, and as far as the math question goes, if Bush were to elevate one of the existing AJs to the CJ seat, it would open a second AJ spot which would also be Bush’s to fill. So yes, there are only two vacancies but Bush could make three appointments (but still only appoint two new justices).
And I mean this in a good way, but:
Are you really a fucking idiot or just deliberately obtuse?
I will make sure to bookmark your post here so that in the next few months you can look back at it and we can have a good laugh together.
Ummm…
Your OP for this thread is about 14 hours before that thread. The person who started the ‘scretching’ was you.
Thanks for the explanation. 
Did I say “let it begin, or it has begun”?
Funny how that post was before yours, but you still decided to post that tripe.
That’s only slightly more likely than Hillary Clinton being named CJ.
Since you are an expert at posting tripe, I bow to your superior knowledge.
I thought it was a combination of screeching and stretching, but that didn’t make much sense. Then I thought it could’ve been a combination of retching and scratching. That just seemed icky.
How about this scenario?
Hillary Clinton gets elected President in 2008. She appoints Bill Clinton Chief Justice (we have Taft as precedent). The Republicans impeach her and Bill ends up presiding over her Senate trial.
And everybody’s head explodes.
That would be really cool (in a sick, twisted way).
That made me laugh entirely too hard.
Okay, Mr. Fallacy-of-the-False-Dilemma, I’ll explain it for you once, then I’m done with you.
Practically every time a controversial and unpopular (around here) public figure shuffles off this mortal coil, we get to wallow in the “debate” of whether it is appropriate to celebrate the event. The more doctrinaire tend to espouse their opinions in terms that imply that anyone who is not dancing on the grave of the late unlamented is mourning his passing, broken-hearted over our collective loss, and pining for the bad old days when the figure in question was alive, kicking, and trampling all over everything that could ever be good and right with the world.
The sane, on the other hand, tend to take a more John Donne-ish view of the matter, and recognize that this was a human being who has died, and even if the person’s living activities ran counter to every impulse we have about how a just and defensible society should operate and behave, even if we find nothing to mourn in the fact that those activities have perforce come to an end, simple decency demands that we allow those who do mourn the respect of our silence while they do so.
With the passings of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, for instance, while others observed national periods of mourning, I felt perfectly satisfied to observe a national period of foot-shuffling and embarrassed throat-clearing (I’d like to be able to properly credit Cecil with that remark, but I can’t find it in the archives). There is no particular need for anyone to go any further than this in declining to mourn.
As implied above, I find the discussion to be more of a wallow than a debate (after the third or fourth time, of course), and I don’t find you to be important enough for me to be willing to engage with you in it all over again.
So please. Don’t be a dick. If you feel you must be a dick, kindly do it elsewhere.
BTW, AFAIKnow could you favor us with an explanation of your [apparent] neologism?
My ‘e’ key sticks sometimes. I never look at the screen when I type and tnd to add or delete them ebfore I post my message. I guess I forgot to check the Title box before I submitted.
And Leaper’s remark left an opening I couldn’t refuse.
Looks like Ol GWB is gonna try to kill two birds with one stone and appoint Roberts as CJ… http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050905/NEWS06/50905001
None other than our favorite pitee, Fred Phelps, is also doing the scretching. Fred and crew are planning on protesting Chief Justice Rehnquist’s funeral. Sorry I can’t link, but I am at work and the WBC site is on our no-no list.