JimBob2232

Not disagreeing with you. Point was though, both sides SAID they were right. They compromized on right and wrong. You cant do that. If you are right, you are right, dont compromise. Also, the fact of the matter is Fillibustering judges is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. This is easy to prove, all you have to do is read it. I dont care who is saying it at the moment, it is unconstitutional and should be corrected.

I for one would rather the senate be all bottled up and get nothing accomplished. Every minture they are arguing over fillibusters is one minute they are not spending my money. That said...I dont understand how you can compromise on this issue. Republicans say : Fillibustering judges is unconstitutional. Democrats say : Fillibustering judges is constitutional. How can you compromise on the constitutionality of filibustering judges? You cant. It is pure insanity to compromise on a very black or white issue. Some see this as a victory for democrats, because they blocked some of bushs appointees. Some see it for republicans becaue they got some through. Bottom line is that this issue IS NOT over. Because democrats WILL fillibuster future judges on the "extreme circumstance" clause. Republicans WILL then fight again for the constitutional option. All this really does is give the senate a clean slate to work with...but it wont fix anything. Washington wont change until we elect about 75 different senators and about 300 different representatives to washinton.

So lets say (hypothetically) 2006 comes and republicans control 60 seats in the senate. They can now break a fillibuster. Would this create a "constitutional crisis"? The constitution is set up so that the government acts as a representitive of the people. If the people elect their representatives, then this is the will of the people. Its not a constitutional crisis. In fact it is proof the constitution works. If the democratic party wasnt so anti EVERYTHING, and actually put forth a positive vision for the country perhaps they would win back some of the support they have lost over the last decade. The senates job (and constitutional duty) is to vote on these nominees. The constitution SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES only a majority of senators to approve a nomination. Any fillibuster of a judicial nominee, regardless of political party is unconstitutional.

I have 500 bucks...now all I need is 999,999 more people....

I dont understand the problem with public ownership. It seems like a good solution to the problem...I know its outlawed..im just wondering why

Here are the senators up for re-election in 06 Arizona—Jon Kyl ® Safe California—Dianne Feinstein (D) Safe Connecticut—Joe Lieberman (D) Safe Delaware—Thomas Carper (D) Safe Florida—Bill Nelson (D) Toss-Up Hawaii—Daniel Akaka (D) Safe Indiana—Dick Lugar ® Safe Maine—Olympia Snowe ® Safe if she makes it through a primary Maryland—OPEN Massachusetts—Ted Kennedy (D) Safe if he doesnt retire Michigan—Debbie Stabenow (D) Close Race Minnesota—OPEN Mississippi—Trent Lott ® Safe if lott doesnt retire Missouri—Jim Talent ® Safe Montana—Conrad Burns ® Competitive Nebraska—Ben Nelson (D) Competitive Nevada—John Ensign ® Safe New Jersey—Jon Corzine (D) Depends on what happing with him running for gov. New Mexico—Jeff Bingaman (D) Safe New York—Hillary Clinton (D) Safe North Dakota—Kent Conrad (D) Safe Ohio—Mike DeWine ® Safe Pennsylvania—Rick Santorum ® Close Rhode Island—Lincoln Chafee ® Close Tennessee—OPEN Texas—Kay Bailey Hutchinson ® Safe as long as she doesnt run for gov. Utah—Orrin Hatch ® Safe Vermont—OPEN Should be close. Virginia—George Allen ® Safe Washington—Maria Cantwell (D) Close West Virginia—Robert Byrd (D) Safe if he doesnt retire Wisconsin—Herb Kohl (D) Safe Wyoming—Craig Thomas ® Safe Current status of seats up for election in 2006: 15 Dem 14 Rep 4 Open seats Of the 14 republican seats, 11 appear safe. Santorum, Chafee and Conrad Burns are the only ones in play at the moment. Of the 15 democrat seats up for election, 11 appear safe (assume corzine is safe). Nelson (FL), Nelson (Neb), Stabenow, Cantwell are in play. The 4 open seats (Ten, Vt, Mayrland and Minnesota) are currently occupied by 1 Rep. 2 Democrats and 1 democrat leaning independent. Tennessee could be a seat gained by democrats. Ford will be tough, but its too close to call at the moment. Vermont is a toss up. Bernie Sanders is the likely frontrunner, but he is an independent, and the republicans will throw a strong former governor at him. Maryland - Toss Up Minnesota - Toss up. So the bottom line is that the republicans have 4 seats they are in jeopardy of losing (Frist, Santorum, Chafee and Burns) Possibly add Mississippi if lott does not run. The democrats have 7 seats that they are in jeopardy of losing (Nelson, FL, Nelson, Neb, Stabenow, Cantwell, Jeffords, Dayton, MN and Sarbanes, MD.) Add NJ if corzine wins governor and WV if byrd retires. It will be interesting, and there is a long way to go, but I wouldnt be suprised to see the republicans pick up an additional 1-3 seats in 2006.

You would think Ralph could work up a sales agreement with a group wanting to keep the team in buffalo now. He could still retain 51% Of the team if thats what he wants, but once he passes on, there is an option for the new ownership group to purchase the remainder of the team. I think Ralph could take care of this while he is still around. I hope he does. Even better...the team moves to norfolk, va...but again...im dreaming

Section II, Clause 2 Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. Lets disect this... "He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;" Notice this says 2/3s Of the senators present... which at a minimum would now mean just 33 Senators if only a bare minimum Quorum were present - 51 Senators. This is what the text actually says. Then in Regards to Nominations: "He (the President) shall have Power, and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advise and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court , and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not otherwise herein provided for, and which shall be established by Law; but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." Now, there is a common standard for interpretation: if a word or phrase is used with similar usage in the same or related documents then those words or phrases may be taken to mean the same thing. In this second half of the passage the Senate is again authorized to provide both Advise and Consent; however, there is no requirement for a 2/3s majority of "the Senators present" ... The Democrats are overstepping their bounds. Also, let the democrats threaten to walk out of the senate. A quarom is defined by the constitution. The Constitution requires a majority of Senators (51) for a quorum. Let them walk out. The republicans will still have a quarom to conduct business, and the senators will not be doing their jobs representing their people. This is going to get ugly...

Look again...after they shiFt...there are only 11...

Well, what you are saying is true....however I cant account for the formation of another head... UGH this is terrible (im sure it is simple once you know what is up)

Well, when the day comes and americans get fed up with the republican party, and decide that they want a democrat president, a democratic senate and a democrattic house of representitives, then the democrat president has every right to nominate Justices he sees fit, and they have every right to get an up or down vote on the senate floor, just like these justices do. The republicans will have every right to complain and whine about it, but they should be powerless to do anything about it. THEY LOST. They are not who the american people want running the government. Its called advise and consent. Lets let the senate actually do their job.

Dude, this is killing me..

Wow, 125k! I wish i could get a house for even twice that...I hate hampton roads...

My point was to identify teams where he COULD start, not necesarily teams who are interested in him. With the exception of Tampa Bay (I forgot about the caddilac), I stand by my list.

I disagree that there is nowhere he can start. Philly (Obvious) Tennessee (Brown is injury prone, and TH is from TN) Arizona (JJ is a crapshoot at this point) Pittsburgh (Is the bus REALLY coming back?) Minnesota (Smith suspended for year. TH is better than Bennett) Cleveland (Lee Suggs? Give me a break) Jacksonville (Fred Taylor is done.) Carolina (what is the status of Steven Davis?) Tampa Bay (Pittman?) San Fran (Barlow is not fitting in....Gore is not likely to be a starter) Green Bay (Davenport is holding out, and green is in trouble with the law.) And he could start in oakland and Atlanta, but that is not likely to happen. Bottom line is that there are many teams where he would be the better man for the job. This is all barring injuries which will happen. I really think he will be starting SOMEWHERE next season...

We had one...his name was zell miller...

I'm sure Jerry and his 80 year old bones are DYING to come and play in -45 degree weather. I dont see it happening.

Travis?

If KFFL reports it...its as close to being done as can be... Cardinals | Shelton Released - from www.KFFL.com Wed, 18 May 2005 14:50:57 -0700 The Arizona Cardinals have announced the release of OT L.J. Shelton.

In case you are wondering...2 more seasons of 24....Looks like Jack is safe this season! http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/television_fox_dc

now THIS is a guy who deserves to be on the wall! Oh, and SDS, see if you cant get his picture to replace willis on TBD!

Signed late last season...for some reason...

Is CTU not afraid the missle might be headed at them? Seems like, if I were head of CTU, I might be considering this at least. You cant expect this is their last attack. Of course we know it because there is only 2 hours left, but What better way to create havoc is there than to destroy the people who are stoping the terrorists? Secondly, as far as realism goes, and I have said this before, but Ill say it again...its 24. They are the ones who built this show up to be a show where every detail matters. Miss one episode and you are lost. They seem to go out of their way (at times) to make the show "Realistic" then they pull some of this stuff that is so out of left field, you wonder why they even try to make it seem real. If its pure fiction, so be it, but then there is too much reality involved. Also, why in the world cant the president simply appoint presidnet palmer to VP? Seems like that would have solved that whole issue and freed up alot of airtime for other important things (like useless love afairs....another gripe I have...). Oh, and just for reiteration....A CRITICAL REACTOR IS A GOOD THING!

Well...its not working for me. Last year I bought the sunday ticket. However, I do not own a HDTV. I know people who will splurge to get the HDTV football package. I will go over to their house to watch the games in HDTV rather than purchase the standard football package myself. So...I dont know how to answer the poll. One more person signing up for HDTV football...One less Football subscriber overall..

Hmm...I cant imagine the cost of living there is all that high...