Given that the Chimp in Chief is looking for commanding media hype, he's gotta pick the nominee who will get the most attention. Who do you think he will go with, and why?
Kenny Starr - to pay off the terms of Poppy's deal in 1992
Roy "Graven Image" Moore of Alabama.
Attorney General "Speedy" Gonzales - to make sure torture becomes law for real.
Bill Clinton - just to confuse the Hell out of everyone
John "The Crisco Kid" Asscrotch (where's he been anyway)
Other - (please name your choice)
Porn star Mary Carey (just to keep the feminazis happy)
Ann Coulter (Junior scores points for nominating first Transgendered judge)
RUMOR: Junior to announce SC nomination Tuesday to distract media from Treasongate
Given that the Chimp in Chief is looking for commanding media hype, he's gotta pick the nominee who will get the most attention. Who do you think he will go with, and why?
Eat Us And Smile
Cenk For America 2024!!
Justice Democrats
"If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992
He'll probably pick a diehard conservative gal to take O'Connor's place. That way, when the libs try to attack her beliefs, the RNC will say that the libs are attacking a hard working professional female trying to work her way up the ladder.
OK, I now have 1 and 1/2 conservative "gals" to pick from, so choose one of emOriginally posted by Warham
He'll probably pick a diehard conservative gal to take O'Connor's place. That way, when the libs try to attack her beliefs, the RNC will say that the libs are attacking a hard working professional female trying to work her way up the ladder.
Well, I think there is one nutty bitch he likes, but she thinks the entire Federal government is too big and unconstitutional...Many "Republicans" are offended by this notion.Originally posted by Warham
He'll probably pick a diehard conservative gal to take O'Connor's place. That way, when the libs try to attack her beliefs, the RNC will say that the libs are attacking a hard working professional female trying to work her way up the ladder.
You'd think liberals would love her, especially with the recent Supreme Court decision where all the libs on the bench ruled in favor of Wal-Mart and big business over a simple man's property rights.
The court is mostly conservative.Originally posted by Warham
You'd think liberals would love her, especially with the recent Supreme Court decision where all the libs on the bench ruled in favor of Wal-Mart and big business over a simple man's property rights.
In this case, the liberals on the court voted for big business instead of the 'little guy' they say they stand for.
You're predicting he'll nominate Monica Lewinsky?Originally posted by Warham
That way, when the libs try to attack her beliefs, the RNC will say that the libs are attacking a hard working professional female trying to work her way up the ladder.
Hope she keeps her robe clean
Originally Posted by Kristy
Kenneth Blackwell. That's who he owes the biggest favor to.
gnaw on it
Kathryn Harris, actuallyOriginally posted by ODShowtime
Kenneth Blackwell. That's who he owes the biggest favor to.
Well apparently she's not running for the Senate, so it could be.Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Kathryn Harris, actually
But what would Cruella Harris do in a job where votes can actually be counted by hand?
jesus
R.I.P Van Halen 1978-1984
hopefully God will ressurect you
"i wont be messing with you in future.the fearsome redballjets88 for fear of you owning me some more" Axl S
" I liked Sammy Hagar " FORD
Originally posted by FORD
Well apparently she's not running for the Senate, so it could be.
But what would Cruella Harris do in a job where votes can actually be counted by hand?
She'd call Kenneth Blackwell, silly
Not technically eligible for the bench, but we'll keep his name in the hopper for yaOriginally posted by Redballjets88
jesus
I am already the Judge in a much Higher Court, My son. Why would the Son of Man want a demotion?Originally posted by Redballjets88
jesus
Black Robe?Originally posted by Jesus Christ
I am already the Judge in a much Higher Court, My son. Why would the Son of Man want a demotion?
Gavels?
Sticking it to the Right?
BTW, that thing I did the other day, can I get a "do over" on that one?
So did I call this shit, or what?
A right wing, anti abortion extremist judge, guaranteed to force media hype on the nomination, and off the treasonous crimes of KKKarl Rove.
Will he go soft to improve his approval ratings?
Will he go hard core to generate the most controversy possible?
Either way it will be a foolish decision!
What crime?Originally posted by FORD
So did I call this shit, or what?
A right wing, anti abortion extremist judge, guaranteed to force media hype on the nomination, and off the treasonous crimes of KKKarl Rove.
Bah-Hahahahahahahaha!
Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
What crime?
Bah-Hahahahahahahaha!
Bah- Hahahahahahahah ????? Always DID figure you for a Sheep
Check out this 1988 Appeals Court case:
U.S. v. MORISON, 844 F.2d 1057 (4th Cir. 1988)
It specifically holds that sections 793 (d) and (e)
apply to leaks to the press and not just "classic
spying," as the defendant in Morison argued.
Case excerpt:
"It seems abundantly clear from this legislative history that sections 793(d) and (e) were not intended to be restricted in application to "classic spying" but were intended to criminalize the disclosure to anyone "not entitled to receive it."
...The language of the two statutes includes no limitation to spies or to "an agent of a foreign government," either as to the transmitter or the transmittee of the information, and they declare no exemption in favor of one who leaks to the press. It covers "anyone." It is difficult to conceive of any language more definite and clear.
... The legislative record is similarly silent on any
Congressional intent in enacting sections 793(d) and
(e) to exempt from its application the transmittal of
secret military information by a defendant to the
press or a representative of the press."
As far as I can tell, this holding is still good law.
So:
1) Based on statements by Matthew Cooper and Rove's
lawyer Robert Luskin we know that on July 8, 2003,
Rove possessed information relating to the national
defense, specifically the fact that "Joseph Wilson's
wife works for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction
issues."
2) Rove's lawyer's statements, Matthew Cooper's
statement about what he told the grand jury, and the
email from Cooper to his editors at Time show that
Rove "willfully communicate[d]" the identity of a CIA
officer to a reporter.
In this context, "willfully" means "intentionally,"
that is, Rove was not forced to communicate the
information, and he did not communicate the
information while talking in his sleep – he
intentionally communicated the information, he
intended for Cooper to receive the information, and
therefore he "willfully communicated" the information.
Not saying Wilson/Plame's actual name is irrelevant
if Rove identified her as a CIA officer – by informing
Cooper that Wilson's "wife" worked for the CIA, Rove
was identifying Valerie Wilson/Plame – Wilson's wife –
as a CIA officer.
3) Surely Rove would have had "reason to believe" the
identity of a CIA officer "could be used" to the
injury of the United States or the advantage of a
foreign nation.
As far as this law is concerned, it appears to be
irrelevant whether Rove actually knew Valerie Wilson
was "covert," because if he did not know whether she
was covert or not, then he knew or would have reason
to believe that she might be covert, and that if she
was, revealing her identity "could be used" against
the United States. (See also the Secutory Clearance
agreement Rep. Waxman noted last week.)
4) A reporter for TIME Magazine is surely "not
entitled" to receive classified information regarding
the identity of a CIA officer.
Under this analysis, it wouldn't matter a bit if in fact Rove had first heard the information from Novak.
If you think this choice is bad/good, just imagine who'll be put up when Rehinquist drops dead three months from now.
Roberts is only extreme to you loony liberals who fit in there right along with the likes of George Soros.
Originally posted by FORD
So did I call this shit, or what?
A right wing, anti abortion extremist judge, guaranteed to force media hype on the nomination, and off the treasonous crimes of KKKarl Rove.
No, Howard Dean said this same crap yesterday. You didn't call anything. Just espousing the looney left mantra.
What's wrong FORD? Didn't want to attach Screaming Howie Dean to the theory because you knew it would be dismissed as partisan bullshit from the head Dem BS tosser?
I honestly didn't know that Dr. Dean had made a similar statement. But as usual, he and I were correctOriginally posted by diamondD
What's wrong FORD? Didn't want to attach Screaming Howie Dean to the theory because you knew it would be dismissed as partisan bullshit from the head Dem BS tosser?
http://homepage.mac.com/lileks/.Public/Yeagh.mp3Originally posted by FORD
I honestly didn't know that Dr. Dean had made a similar statement. But as usual, he and I were correct
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote