Tony Snow: SCOTUS does NOT decide what's constitutional or not. Bush does!

[Roland99]

http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1451

(Eric Brewer): "But isn’t it the Supreme Court that’s supposed to decide whether laws are unconstitutional or not?"

(Tony Snow): "No, as a matter of fact the president has an obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is an obligation that presidents have enacted through signing statements going back to Jefferson. So, while the Supreme Court can be an arbiter of the Constitution, the fact is the President is the one, the only person who, by the Constitution, is given the responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend that document, so it is perfectly consistent with presidential authority under the Constitution itself."

:wow: :scared:


:wtf:


Snow must be snorting blow. That was just about the most inane bullsh*t ever uttered by anyone who's ever held that position. And that's saying a lot considering Snow's predecessor.


Seriously, is there any ideological/strategic difference between the right-wing radicals ruining this country and the Islamists seeking Islamic states in their homelands? They both want to achieve power through democratic means and then dismantle and destroy those processes to remain in power for eternity.

[cool user name]

1. Good grief!

I haven't the words ...

[wholetruth00]

58. The words are: Bush is above the law and the Constitution. So says

his press secretary and the rest of the administration. The Democrats really need to jump on this in the media. People must be made aware of the fascism and the dictatorship that is taking over this country.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. WHAT THE FUCK koolaid is he snorting?

I definitively do NOT want some.

[Imagevision]

60. Repugs will say any GD. thing to come across as the real-deal!

[hvn_nbr_2]

78. You really want an answer to that?

Well, let's see. He has his head up his butt. So guess what he's snorting.

[Greeby]

3. Ugh, give me "ongoing investigation" over this any day

:eyes:

[MADem]

4. How that dickhead can convolute the definitions provided for in the OATH

of office to a decision-making ability with regard to Constitutionality is beyond me.

If that were the case, than EVERY sumbitch in government, every government official who takes an oath with that phrase in it, from Cabinet pukes to the most junior military personnel, would have authority to do a little document tweaking, too.

What a nitwit that Snowjob is.

I took that fucking oath every time I got promoted, and that was plenty of times.

So hand me my quill pen and that Constitution, there--I've got to write an amendment that prohibits anyone named Bush from holding public office.

[JHB]

55. How? Same way he too office...

He seizes what he wants with both hands, and if no one smacks his face and takes it away, he keeps it.

[NC_Nurse]

5. Did any of these guys study

American History or civics at all in school? Geez, they're pathetic!
I guess they're banking on a lot of dumasses out there who will believe anything they say...:eyes:

[MADem]

10. Didn't Karen Hughes confuse the Pledge of Allegiance with the

the Constitution? Why yes, I believe she did--she told a bunch of Arab women that "one nation, under God" was in our Constitution!

I think one of the Arab ladies CORRECTED her.

[Roland99]

14. Briefing en route to Ankara, Turkey (Sept. 26, 2005)

http://www.state.gov/r/us/2005/54062.htm

QUESTION: Going back to the subject of the President, did anyone speak specifically about President Bush -- their feelings about him, objections to him?

UNDER SECRETARY HUGHES: I haven’t really heard a lot of that. I had one person at one lunch raise the issue of the President mentioning God in his speeches. And I asked whether he was aware that previous American presidents have also cited God, and that our Constitution cites "one nation under God." He said "well, never mind" and went on to something else. So he sort of was trying to equate that with the terrorists’ (inaudible). So I explained that I didn’t really think that was something you could equate. And he sort of dropped it and moved on. He was one of the opposition leaders in Egypt.

[MADem]

28. Yep, it was an Egyptian, and the Guardian/Blumenthal covered it

"Many people around the world do not understand the important role that faith plays in Americans' lives," she said. When an Egyptian opposition leader inquired why Mr Bush mentions God in his speeches, Hughes asked him whether he was aware that "previous American presidents have also cited God, and that our constitution cites 'one nation under God'."

"Well, never mind," he said.

With these well-meaning arguments, Hughes has provided the exact proofs for Bin Laden's claims about American motives. "It is stunning to the extent Hughes is helping bin Laden," says Robert Pape, a University of Chicago political scientist who has conducted extensive research into the motives of suicide terrorists and is the author of Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. "If you set out to help bin Laden," he says, "you could not have done it better than Hughes."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1581655,00.html

[Roland99]

30. Thanks for the link. Looks like the same transcript as my link above

[wordpix]

80. another Bush flunkie with a Big Job Promotion for being devoted to Bushie

when she doesn't know dick about the ME or America, either.

[Hepburn]

47. My thoughts exactly.

I wondered if he ever took high school civics, let alone learned enough to pass the class. His statement? Unbelievable...and scary, too. :wtf:

[China_cat]

6. THERE ARE -3-

branches of government. (Where's Patrick Stewart when we need him?)

[ContraBass Black]

51. Vaudeville.

http://accordionguy.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2005/7/9/1010345.html

Or did you mean Jon Stewart?

[China_cat]

54. No, I meant Patrick Stewart

from an episode of ST:TNG where Picard is being brainwashed. Told over and over and over...with accompanying torture...that there are 5 lights shining on him from above he insists that there are only 4 (the correct number).

You'd have to see it to understand the power of it.

[ContraBass Black]

56. I have seen it.

America has indeed begun to believe that there are five lights.

[bookman]

7. I'm sueing..

my social studies teachers. I was misinformed.

[Roland99]

11. .

LOL!



I also think you should be "suing" your English teacher. :P




:D


Just messin' with ya. :)

[truebrit71]

8. Tony Blow once again proves what an idiot he is...

:puke:

[MannyGoldstein]

9. This is Precisely Why The Congress Are Such Craven Cowards

By failing to censure Bush for his bizarre views on the Constitution, they have basically agreed with him!!! As a matter of law, this may become a big problem - in fact, it's precisely how Hitler ended up getting absolute control of Germany! - Germany was a functioning democracy until Hitler's predecessor started claiming he could create new laws in an emergency - and the legislature did nothing to stop it. When Hitler started creating new laws, the courts ruled that there was precedence for this and it must be OK because the legislature hadn't complained.

"The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know" - Harry Truman

[Ilsa]

12. Tony Snow is another tagnut on the collective American ass. nt

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

13. Obviously Snowjob never heard of Marbury v. Madison, 1803

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Did Tony ever take a civics class in elementary school?

[rodeodance]

67. the intent is to leave children behind.

[Solly Mack]

15. OMGolly..the oath? he's deriving powers from the oath now?

Fuck this shit

[BlooInBloo]

16. Um, that isn't what snow said.

Yah, snow is fulla shit, but your subject doesn't accurately reflect what he said.

[Marr]

17. I'm so sick of this totalitarian bullshit.

They've made it clear over and over that they think the Executive Branch is superior to the other two branches of government, and that the President and his staff are above the law.

If such an outright endorsement of dictatorship isn't treasonous then I don't know what is. The fact that they do while claiming to be patriots is simply surreal.

[razors edge]

18. the really sick part of it is

they will hold the constitution to their face to blow their nose on it, after using it for six years to wipe their ass.

[SammyWinstonJack]

19. Huh?

:crazy:

[weldon berger]

20. Thanks for the link

Always nice to get a little DU flood, especially when it's on Eric's behalf. This is a guy who is not a professional reporter -- he's a scientist by trade -- but who has off and on for more than 18 months now been going into the briefing room and asking legitimate, tough questions of McClellan, when he was there, and now Snow. Both of them have given him a hard time on occasion -- McClellan had the habit of ignoring him for a few days if he asked something particularly annoying -- and he keeps returning and asking more good questions. I'm more than a little amazed and extremely proud of his performance.

[JohnnyLib2]

21. deja vu

This sure reminds me of the spokesman who had to cover up for Nixon while he unraveled. Ron Nessen? "That statement is inoperative." Eerie times, really.

Tonight, I'm wondering if Big Dawg C., master politician, smells blood in the water and caused a little more.

Sign me always hopeful.

[Towlie]

22. But what happened to "We the People"?

The Constitution is a document authored by the people, placing limitations on the government.



For the President's administration to assert that they can essentially override it and decide what they can and cannot do is analogous to a US Navy captain asserting that he can ignore his orders and do whatever he wants with his ship.

To continue the analogy, shipmates, we have a loose cannon on board.

[SammyWinstonJack]

23. We don't matter. ** has stated "that this would be easier if it were

a dictatorship, so long as he were the dictator", and apparently Tony Snowjob agrees.

[Raine]

24. and yet

it was fine for the supremes to make the decision that put monkey boy into the Whitehouse. :wtf: :crazy:

[JDPriestly]

25. Mr. Snow needs to sit in on a few law school classes in

constitutional law. Has he never heard of the Supreme Court decision, Marbury v. Madison? (1803) 5 U.S. 137

On the final day of John Adams' presidency, on March 3, 1801 the Senate confirmed Adams' appointment of William Marbury as justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. John Marshall, who had served as Secretary of State under Adams until he was appointed Chief Justice on January 31, 1801 continued to act as Acting Secretary of State until March 3, 1801. Somehow, the paperwork on the appointment of Marbury never left Marshall's office, and when Jefferson became president, he instructed Madison, his Secretary of State to simply let sleeping dogs lie with regard to Marbury's appointment. Marbury filed a suit directly in the Supreme Court demanding execution by the executive of his appointment. The Supreme Court had to decide whether it had the authority to order the president to carry out an order or mandamus from the Court.

The Supreme Court differentiated between political appointments over which the Court does not have jurisdiction and appointments "where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty," and state that, in the latter category of cases, "it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured, has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy . . ." Thus, the Supreme Court may issue what is called a "writ" ordering that an officer of the government adhere to a law or the Constitution. And in Marbury, =the Court ordered Jefferson and his administration to comply with the Senate's confirmation of Marbury.


Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the Supreme Court decision.

A few quotes from that case: "The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution."

The court then mentions several provisions in the Constitution that must be interpreted by a court such as the prohibition on ex post is apparent, and stated "that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of the courts, as well as of the legislature."

"Why otherwise does it direct the Judges to take an oath to support ?" The Supreme Court notes that the legislators also take an oath to discharge their duties "agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States."

I was reviewing my notes from high school government a few weeks ago. We discussed Marbury v. Madison. I was not a government major in college, but we also discussed in my Gov. 101 class -- and then, of course in more detail in law school. Did Snow skip school? Would his high school government teacher please step forward. Surely Snow knows better.


The President swears to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution," but the Supreme Court can order him to obey its interpretation of the Constitution or of laws or treaties. Article III of the U.S. Constitution; Marbury v. Madison.

[magellan]

57. Tony Snow went to the Freeper School of 'Lore'

That's all the 'lore' he needs to know.

[Crunchy Frog]

26. Preserve, protect and defend

does NOT equal deciding what is and is not constitutional.

Can anybody even IMAGINE what the RW reaction would have been to the Clinton administration pulling this sort of crap.

I feel like I'm helplessly watching my country creep step by step, inexorably towards a fascist dictatorship, and there's not a damn thing I can do about it.:banghead:

[TankLV]

29. You are not alone...

Too many of us have been feeling this since the 2000 coup...

[indepat]

27. We can take great comfort that W has put preserving, protecting and

defending the Constitution as his job #1: implementing an extreme RW PNAC agenda has always been job # 2.

[SaveElmer]

31. Sounds like he is channeling Andrew Jackson...nt

[Eric J in MN]

32. Yes, the president should interpret the Constiution, but...

...if he thinks a bill is unconstitutional, he should veto it.

Not sign it and also proclaim that he won't follow the law he just signed.

[Thickasabrick]

33. I really despise Snow. He makes me miss Scott M and Ari.

[Sydnie]

34. Obviously, the boys and girls at the CIA don't agree with Snow

otherwise, why would we need new legislation for their misdeeds?

Wrong, wrong, wrong, Snowjob, but a good try. Let's see if you still think that way when there is a DEM in that seat, you asshat.

[bridgit]

35. Snow & the whole bunch of them have to be main-lining rocks...

of crack cocaine no doubt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

36. Tony, you ignorant slut.

Get thee to a law library and read freakin' Marbury v. Madison. That's Con-Law 101. Says the Supreme Court decides what's constitutional. And it's been that way since 1803.

:banghead:

[havocmom]

37. Ask Tony if every officer in our Armed Forces gets to tweak Constitution

speaking of oaths...

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

By THAT oath, they ought to be able to kick some war profiteer butt, and perhaps clip the wings of some chicken hawks who think they can decide what the Constitution means.

"defend the Constitution of the United States agains all enemies, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..." Hmm, that comes BEFORE the part about obeying orders... AND that Code of Military Justice thing-y? Doesn't that protect them from having to obey an ILLEGAL order?

Yes, Tony, let's all talk oaths and powers they grant... :evilgrin:

[MADem]

40. See post four, above--I'm still rummaging about for that quill pen NT

[havocmom]

43. Saw that. Wanted to give you the backup you might need

;)

[Lasher]

59. Enlisted men and women too.

Here is the oath I took when I was drafted in 1969:

"I, Lasher, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Tony Snowjob wouldn't know this firsthand, because he's never served in the military - just like almost all the other neocons. But surely Tony saw the 1981 movie, Stripes, so he should have known better.

So I guess I'm a Decider too. I just happen to have a blank parchment scroll right here, so I'll be busy working on amendment 99 to the Constitution. Don't anybody else use that number for your amendments, OK?

[havocmom]

91. Yep, as I recall, my big brother uttered words about the Constitution

and he UNDERSTOOD the meaning, intent, importance of those words. At the tender age of 8, I got the drift too.

We all still defend the Constitution in my family. Like most families, we take that duty as a sacred trust.

bush family seems to regard it differently. They and their real base, the Haves and Have Mores just think of that document as an amusing little demonstration the rabble exercised long ago. It is not relevant in their view.

We have to hire representatives who will give them serious instruction on that profound instrument.

[MADem]

72. It is certainly appreciated!!

:hi:

Now, where IS that damned quill pen???

[havocmom]

90. Got lots of wild turkey type birds in my 'hood?

Want I should go pluck myself?

[Elwood P Dowd]

38. Snow cited the famous Mayberry vs Aunt Bea decision

when Barney arrested Bea and the entire population of Mayberry. Part II was never televised, but in that episode Mayor Pike ruled that Barney had the legal right to declare himself dictator of Mayberry and arrest anyone for anything.

[Flying Dream Blues]

39. Roland99, there you go again with your reality-based nonsense.

You know that Tony and * can pull whatever they want out of their a&& and THAT becomes reality.

[CAG]

41. I'm sure Tony Blow would have the same opinion if Kerry or Clinton were

president right now... yeah right!

What part of "preserve".... "protect".... and "defend".... have ANYTHING to do with "rewriting".... or "reinterpreting"....

Even if the office of the president had this totalitarian (is there any other word for this in the way Blow is meaning it - the ability of a single person to interpret the constitution the way he sees fit???) power, who in God's name would want a village idiot from Texas to be the "decider"????

[mmonk]

42. I decide. I took the oath when I was in ROTC in college.

[dogday]

44. That explains why these bastards have been raping

the Constitution... Because they can.... Now I get it :sarcasm:

[Strawman]

45. That's Gonzales's WH legal brief on Marbury v. Madison

[ck4829]

46. Um, Judicial Review?

[YankeyMCC]

48. Maybe it's the name George that makes people think they

should be king...nah that can't be Washington understood well and made an effort to ensure the government got off on the right foot in terms of checks and balances.

Hey, nitwit Snow...there are THREE branches of government all of which have roles in deciding the constitutionality of laws and actions of the government...get a clue...read a book or better yet the effing Constitution!

[Jacobin]

49. In any other time, in any other country, that would be the end

of this regime.

The finish.

The news media (if we still had one) would repeat this day and night as breaking news and impeachment would have started in a day.

[leftyladyfrommo]

50. Has someone told the Supreme Court that?

Don't you wonder if they really beleive this stuff - or if they know better and are just spinning it?

[dkofos]

52. If that is the case

We need a more intelligent pResident

[Nictuku]

53. Every Judiciary Employee makes the same oath

That is a bunch of BS.

[BrotherBuzz]

61. PROOF Bush is following wacko John Yoo's twisted circular logic

A brief primer designed to help you understand the workings of our new, streamlined American system of government

JON CARROLL
Monday, January 2, 2006

Perhaps you have been unable to follow the intricacies of the logic used by John Yoo, the UC Berkeley law professor who has emerged as the president's foremost apologist for all the stuff he has to apologize for. I have therefore prepared a brief, informal summary of the relevant arguments.

Why does the president have the power to unilaterally authorize wiretaps of American citizens?

Because he is the president.

Does the president always have that power?

No. Only when he is fighting the war on terror does he have that power.

When will the war on terror be over?

The fight against terror is eternal. Terror is not a nation; it is a tactic. As long as the president is fighting a tactic, he can use any means he deems appropriate.

Why does the president have that power?

It's in the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution?

It can be inferred from the Constitution. When the president is protecting America, he may by definition make any inference from the Constitution that he chooses. He is keeping America safe.

Who decides what measures are necessary to keep America safe?

The president.

Who has oversight over the actions of the president?

The president oversees his own actions. If at any time he determines that he is a danger to America, he has the right to wiretap himself, name himself an enemy combatant and spirit himself away to a secret prison in Egypt.

But isn't there a secret court, the FISA court, that has the power to authorize wiretapping warrants? Wasn't that court set up for just such situations when national security is at stake?

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court might disagree with the president. It might thwart his plans. It is a danger to the democracy that we hold so dear. We must never let the courts stand in the way of America's safety.

So there are no guarantees that the president will act in the best interests of the country?

The president was elected by the people. They chose him; therefore he represents the will of the people. The people would never act against their own interests; therefore, the president can never act against the best interests of the people. It's a doctrine I like to call "the triumph of the will."

But surely the Congress was also elected by the people, and therefore also represents the will of the people. Is that not true?

Congress? Please.

It's sounding more and more as if your version of the presidency resembles an absolute monarchy. Does it?

Of course not. We Americans hate kings. Kings must wear crowns and visit trade fairs and expositions. The president only wears a cowboy hat and visits military bases, and then only if he wants to.

Can the president authorize torture?

No. The president can only authorize appropriate means.

Could those appropriate means include torture?

It's not torture if the president says it's not torture. It's merely appropriate. Remember, America is under constant attack from terrorism. The president must use any means necessary to protect America.

Won't the American people object?

Not if they're scared enough.

What if the Supreme Court rules against the president?

The president has respect for the Supreme Court. We are a nation of laws, not of men. In the unlikely event that the court would rule against the president, he has the right to deny that he was ever doing what he was accused of doing, and to keep further actions secret. He also has the right to rename any practices the court finds repugnant. "Wiretapping" could be called "protective listening." There's nothing the matter with protective listening.

Recently, a White House spokesman defended the wiretaps this way: "This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner. These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches." If these very bad people have blown up churches, why not just arrest them?

That information is classified.

Have many weddings been blown up by terrorists?

No, they haven't, which is proof that the system works. The president does reserve the right to blow up gay terrorist weddings -- but only if he determines that the safety of the nation is at stake. The president is also keeping his eye on churches, many of which have become fonts of sedition. I do not believe that the president has any problem with commuter trains, although that could always change.

So this policy will be in place right up until the next election?

Election? Let's just say that we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. It may not be wise to have an election in a time of national peril.

[Hosnon]

62. The Supreme Court was not supposed to be the only Constitutional

interpreter...all three branches of government were supposed to weigh in.

Snow is crazy to suggest that the President is the ONLY branch to do so. Not only is that not consistent with the intent of the Founders, it is inconsistent with the way in which the system has developed (SCOTUS being the only interpreter.)

[gully]

63. "preserve, protect, and defend" does not mean "interpret!"

For the morans:

pre‧serve  Pronunciation -

1. to keep alive or in existence; make lasting: to preserve our liberties as free citizens.
2. to keep safe from harm or injury; protect or spare.
3. to keep up; maintain: to preserve historical monuments.

---------------

pro‧tect  Pronunciation -

1. to defend or guard from attack, invasion, loss, annoyance, insult, etc.; cover or shield from injury or danger.

---------------

de‧fend  Pronunciation -

1. to ward off attack from; guard against assault or injury (usually fol. by from or against): The sentry defended the gate against sudden attack.
2. to maintain by argument, evidence, etc.; uphold: She defended her claim successfully.
3. to contest (a legal charge, claim, etc.).

---------------

Our forefathers decided AGAINST a king for a reason. "We The People" are supposed to have a say.

[Kadie]

64. Good Grief!

:scared:

[malaise]

65. Will we get a response from SCOTUS

or is anyone in the WH Press Corp willing to challenge this moron's lack of knowledge re the constitution.

[rodeodance]

66. shutter shutter shake shake.

Tony Snow: SCOTUS does NOT decide what's constitutional or not. Bush does!

[area51]

68. "preserve, protect, and defend ..."

Tony Snowjob said:

"GW Hoover has the responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend ... (the Constitution)."

Hey, Tony, want to talk about how GW Hoover said the Constitution "is only a goddamned piece of paper"?

[silverlib]

69. A question ..... Why is "Helen" in this dialog?

I confess - haven't been up and going too long this morning, but Eric Brewer is the journalist asking the questions, right?

Please forgive me is I'm 'just not getting it.'

From Tony Snow: "This is actually something that presidents in the past have done if they think that the methods—you’ve got to go back and look, Helen—the number of statements—and one of the things also is that what has happened in this administration is rather than writing vague signing statements and saying “we disagree with this,” we’ve spelled out the provisions precisely."

[weldon berger]

87. Helen is everywhere

Helen Thomas interjected something that Eric's recorder didn't pick up, and Tony apparently responded to that in the middle of his response to Eric. As noted elsewhere, the White House won't give us the transcript so we don't know what Helen said.

[silverlib]

88. Thank you for your response...

I actually found one from Eric on Atrio and posted it in #82.

Thanks again!

[weldon berger]

89. You're welcome. And ...

I have no explanation whatsoever for missing your other post.

[Bake]

70. The "money quote" from Marbury v. Madison

"It is emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department, to say what the law is."

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)

Nothing in there about the prez having the final say ...

Bake

[Richard Steele]

71. Their bullshit is getting shakey and desperate. It's a GOOD thing! nm

[savemefromdumbya]

73. oh boy!

[lonestarnot]

74. Snow job on the Decider.

[RandiRhodesArchives]

75. what an asshole

Uhm, WOW. WELCOME TO DICTATORSHIP AMERICA 2006.
Yeah Tony, Bush SURE is preserving, protecting and defending the fuckin Constitution! AHAHAHA, don't make me laugh! He seems to have forgotten that the legislature creates the law.. the executive branch decides if it should be made INTO a Law of the land.. and the judicial branch decides if that Law is constitutional! But ya know, he's the decider and 9/11 changed everything...

[texas1928]

76. This needs to be broad cast all over the country.

People need to hear this over and over, so that they can see what this administration thinks. But no, today we get to see two racecar drivers beating each other up.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

77. Back to ninth grade civics class for you, Tony Snow!

:eyes:

[KBlagburn]

79. Can't find it on whitehouse site.

Looked at the archives on the whitehouse website and could not find this briefing. did anyone get a screen shot of it?

[gkhouston]

81. if there's a clip of it, I bet it'll be running on Countdown

tonight... and that Jonathan Turley will be doing another guest spot. Jeez, they might as well build the guy his own set, as much as we'll be seeing of him in the next few years.

[silverlib]

82. Response from Brewer on Atrios concerning our questions...

Your question is addressed here, as well as my question (see post 69). I anxious for this to go up on the WH site, or somewhere else. I googled for quite some time and the only references on any of the blogs is Brewer's site. I anxiously await further documentation.

When asked about why “Helen” was addressed in the transcript, this was Brewer’s response on www.atrios.com

I'm Eric Brewer, the author of the post on BTC News. I've been attending White House press briefings for BTC News on an irregular basis for a year and a half. Weldon Berger, the proprietor of BTC News, has asked the White House for a transcript of the morning gaggle which I attended yesterday. Before I blog about WH press briefings, I normally wait for the WH to post a transcript on its website, but they often don't post one if it's a morning gaggle held at the White House, as opposed to a mid-day televised briefing or a gaggle held outside of Washington.

I prepared the transcript I used yesterday from a tape recording that I made, and I couldn't hear Helen Thomas's interjected comment on the tape.

[Supersedeas]

83. No, the Supreme Court is an 'ARBITER' - Sandra O'Connor are you getting

this???

[weldon berger]

84. Re: questions about the gaggle transcript

I requested a transcript from Dave Almacy, our contact at the White House media relations office, who is also a White House spokesman. He told me the transcript is "internal only." I'm exploring other avenues for obtaining one but I'm not optimistic. Eric's transcription is from his recording of the exchange, and while I didn't specifically ask Dave if he had a problem with it, I did tell him Eric had written on it and that's why I wanted the transcript. I assume he would have asked for a correction if he thought one was necessary, and I have no reason to think Eric's recorder is biased.

[Jersey Devil]

85. Tony Snow would make a great straight man

He could pair up with another comedian and we'd have the second coming of Abbott and Costello. His deadpan straightman routine is terrific.

I just realized that I never could have been a Presidential Press Secretary because I could never say hilarious shit like that with a straight face. Christ, I'd be peeing my pants laughing.

[Guaranteed]

86. Sounds like a coup, to me. Why isn't he being arrested? nt

[Supersedeas]

92. Paging Anthony Kenedy-time to take your spot with Scalia Thomas Alito

and Roberts are 'arbiters' sir.

[sutz12]

93. I took a similar oath when I enlisted in the Marine Corps...

and I wasn't even a Private yet, just a recruit. Does that mean I'm a Constitutional authority higher than the Supreme Court?

Hot damn, I'm finally going places! :sarcasm: