spendius wrote:Lola:-
Have you not noticed?
My evening posts.
Yes.I have done it.My library now sports a kit.
You will try to make it worthwhile won't you?
I was wondering about that just now, actually. I wondered if you eat and bathe at your office. This is good news. Now you can google.
Yes, I noticed the oaf has been working over time also. He won't get much done eating lettuce sandwiches though!
Mathos, don't you call Spendius an oaf. It's not nice.
This NYT article belongs here:
"May 25, 2005
Justice Choice Could Rekindle Filibuster Fight in the Senate
By ROBIN TONER and RICHARD W. STEVENSON
WASHINGTON, May 24 - For all the euphoria Monday night that the political center had held, the Senate compromise in the judicial filibuster fight did not noticeably de-escalate the ultimate battle now looming: that over a potential vacancy on the Supreme Court.
In fact, a new debate erupted almost immediately over the meaning of the agreement reached by seven Democrats and seven Republicans, which sought to preserve the right to judicial filibusters but restrict their use to "extraordinary circumstances."
Republicans and their allies said the agreement made it much harder for Democrats to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee - particularly on the basis of the candidate's judicial philosophy. After all, they argued, the accord explicitly cleared three appellate court nominees - all established conservatives - for floor votes.
Democrats disagreed. "There's nothing in anything that was done last night that prevents us from filibustering somebody that's extreme, whether it's on the district court, on a circuit court or the Supreme Court," said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader.
Leading Democrats and their allies were highlighting another part of the agreement: what they asserted was a clear signal to President Bush that he needed to engage in "true consultation and cooperation" with both parties before naming future court nominees, particularly to the Supreme Court.
"This agreement is a shot across the bow toward the president," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. "Don't pick someone too extreme or you'll run into trouble."
Administration officials and their allies pushed back, saying the agreement would have no effect on their powers to pick a nominee. Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said the administration would consult as it always had, signaling that it did not intend to change in any substantive way its method of selecting, vetting and nominating candidates for the federal bench, including the Supreme Court.
The expectation at the White House, though, was that any Supreme Court nomination would still be a messy affair, even if the accord did make it harder for Democrats to filibuster on ideological grounds. That may end up driving opponents to look more intently for the personal or ethical grounds that would justify such a maneuver - the "extraordinary circumstances" the deal allows.
The fight over judicial filibusters has always been considered a proxy for the fight over the Supreme Court, where a vacancy is expected as early as this summer. Conservatives were furious over Democratic efforts to keep a handful of conservative nominees to appellate courts from an up-or-down vote on the floor; Democrats said they were simply exercising their rights as a minority and blocking judges who were outside the mainstream.
Senate Republican leaders moved toward a climactic vote to change the rules and prohibit such judicial filibusters, a move averted by the compromise Monday night. It was an exquisitely calibrated balancing act between 14 mavericks, moderates and old bulls who tried to protect the power of the Senate to advise and consent while breaking the partisan stalemate.
The Democratic senators involved in the deal were Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia; Ben Nelson of Nebraska; Mark Pryor of Arkansas; Ken Salazar of Colorado; Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut; Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana; and Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii.
The Republican senators were Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine; Lindsey Graham of South Carolina; Mike DeWine of Ohio; John W. Warner of Virginia; John McCain of Arizona; and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island."
Is c.i. correct when he says that the above post belongs here? What is he getting at? Is he trying to enlighten us or is it an example of his fescennine
weltanschauung.
I suspect, Spendius, that he refers to this instance of political activity in the Senate as "debate between ignoranmuses."
Setanta:--
Wouldn't that show a degree of disrespect towards your elected representitives?
If so I distance myself from it. It distills to lack of respect for the voters and some of them are friends of mine.I feel quite sure that the senators have a fair idea of what they are doing even though it may not seem so to those with their nose pressed against the window.
One of the many merits of Salammbo is to demonstrate the phenomenal progress our leaders have made in caring for our comforts over the last two millenia.I sometimes think that they may have gone too far in this regard.
I would only point out that i was offering my best speculation as to why C.I. had stated that the report belonged here.
As far as a contention that governance has improved markedly in 2000 years, my response would be, with regard to the industrialized west, such an assumption ought to be obvious.
Setanta:-
What time of day is it where you are?
At the time of your inquiry, it was 7:15 a.m.
spendius wrote:I'll follow that.
Like someone who is impatient with someone else who hasn't showed up on time when they don't know whether the unpunctual person is dead or not.That sort of ignorance leads to empty debate with oneself.
spendius.
LOL! Um, are you live now?
That's not fair.I was newly hatched then and mature intellectuals gloss over such periods in their lives even though they were of momentous significance.
Spendi? Please explain your "newly hatched" where did that come from? I'm confused.
spendius wrote:That's not fair.I was newly hatched then and mature intellectuals gloss over such periods in their lives even though they were of momentous significance.
Oh, we all know you are the King of Gloss! Or is that Queen? In any event, I just love it when they put on that dark red lipstick, then cover it with too much Gloss! :wink:
Lola wrote:Mathos, don't you call Spendius an oaf. It's not nice.
Lola, what else could I possibly address him as, that would not get me hurled into the abyss with your uncouth 'special air man?'
Mathos, Bless you, my son.
The pleasure is mine C.I.
The firing squad is on the way.
Hi Lola.
How's things?
Warming up eh?
What's the article about?Any chance of a blimp?My comments might have a little value.You never know.
A seg is a pile of blisters.When you're on a pick-axe you get blisters.If you keep going these turn into numb lumps which don't,unlike blisters,hurt.When you get them on the feet with athleticism they spoil the Rubens effect,which doesn't have continuous rubbings in the same place.
I'm surprised you don't know the word.Callouses.
