|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
Time for change (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 07:01 PM Original message |
Senator Feingold Suggests Impeachment of Corrupt Supreme Court Justices |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
stray cat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 07:02 PM Response to Original message |
1. IF illegal corruption is clearly proven in a court of law and not blogs -absolutely agree |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ClassWarrior (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 07:16 PM Response to Reply #1 |
3. Impeachment is not the conviction, just the indictment. But the trial is held in the Senate... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laughingliberal (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 07:55 PM Response to Reply #3 |
9. Thank you. Saved me the trouble. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FlufferFreeZone (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-13-10 11:53 AM Response to Reply #3 |
178. Impeach the RATS + Kennedy NOW!!!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
aquart (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 02:40 PM Response to Reply #1 |
134. Wasn't there conflict yet they didn't recuse? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lark (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 03:28 PM Response to Reply #1 |
142. Bush vs Gore anyone? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Gin Blossom (99 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 07:14 PM Response to Original message |
2. VERY interesting. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
philly_bob (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 07:21 PM Response to Original message |
4. Justice Thomas' wife was on Bush transition team during Bush v. Gore case! (nt) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Enthusiast (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 07:18 AM Response to Reply #4 |
69. That about says it all |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
The Wizard (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 07:34 AM Response to Reply #4 |
73. Scalia's son |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dinger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 07:24 PM Response to Original message |
5. Very Interesting Indeed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
midnight (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 09:19 PM Response to Reply #5 |
23. I love the pic. Where was it taken? Also I agree with the rule of law or throw them out... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dinger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 12:04 AM Response to Reply #23 |
47. At A Listening Session In Antigo, Wisconsin |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
midnight (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 06:29 AM Response to Reply #47 |
58. Thank you for attending those listening sessions, and the Senator does not seem |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dinger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 06:43 AM Response to Reply #58 |
63. A Couple Of Videos From That Listening Session |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
midnight (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 07:57 AM Response to Reply #63 |
83. The Senator does a good job with the man who seems unwilling to hear |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Enthusiast (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 07:20 AM Response to Reply #47 |
70. You 'look' like a perfectly |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Myrina (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 05:49 PM Response to Reply #47 |
151. What are you doing with my future husband? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dinger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 07:27 PM Response to Reply #151 |
167. Never You Mind |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DeeDeeNY (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 04:19 AM Response to Reply #5 |
52. You are so fortunate |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dinger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 06:31 AM Response to Reply #52 |
59. It Sure Does |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RainDog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 07:30 PM Response to Original message |
6. Vincent Bugliosi had a petition online to impeach the Supreme Court 5 before 9-11 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 07:45 PM Response to Original message |
7. I agree with Feingold about most things |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Time for change (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 08:38 PM Response to Reply #7 |
12. The term Feingold used was "lawless" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 08:55 PM Response to Reply #12 |
16. I seem to remember reading this in your OP |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Time for change (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 09:20 PM Response to Reply #16 |
24. My first sentence in the OP says |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 09:59 PM Response to Reply #24 |
34. Your response doesn't address |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Time for change (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 10:04 PM Response to Reply #34 |
38. See section in OP, "On the corrupt nature of the decision" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 05:15 AM Response to Reply #38 |
56. It's hard to take that justification seriously |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Time for change (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 06:42 AM Response to Reply #56 |
62. What words do you think I put into his mouth? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 06:45 PM Response to Reply #62 |
159. Here is what you put in your OP |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Time for change (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 08:49 PM Response to Reply #159 |
174. Yes, I did. I thought that was obvious. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 09:02 PM Response to Reply #174 |
177. So it never occurred to you |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bluenorthwest (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 07:40 AM Response to Reply #16 |
77. The word 'corrupt' does not mean 'bribed' or 'bought' |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 08:11 PM Response to Reply #77 |
173. And which of your numerous definitions of "corrupt" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
totodeinhere (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 09:43 AM Response to Reply #12 |
92. It may be "lawless" in the eyes of Feingold, but unfortunately Feingold is not on the court and... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Time for change (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 01:48 PM Response to Reply #92 |
118. They don't necessarily have the last word. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
totodeinhere (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 04:17 PM Response to Reply #118 |
145. Do you realistically believe that any of the five will ever be impeached and removed from office? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Time for change (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 08:51 PM Response to Reply #145 |
175. No, I don't. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BeFree (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 08:45 PM Response to Reply #7 |
14. Yeah |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 08:57 PM Response to Reply #14 |
17. Well, I don't disagree with you about Bush v. Gore |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cali (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 09:13 PM Response to Reply #7 |
21. he did not call for the impeachment of anyone. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 09:19 PM Response to Reply #21 |
22. Feingold did not use the word "impeachment" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
midnight (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 09:43 PM Response to Reply #7 |
30. "Impeachment is for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 09:54 PM Response to Reply #30 |
31. Nice try, but epic fail |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Lord Magus (443 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 12:28 AM Response to Reply #31 |
49. High crimes and misdemeanors are whatever Congress says they are. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kenfrequed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 08:58 AM Response to Reply #49 |
87. Indeed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
midnight (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 06:38 AM Response to Reply #31 |
61. Feingold said, “one of the most lawless in the history of the Supreme Court”. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
fascisthunter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 07:13 PM Response to Reply #61 |
166. we can bank money on that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 10:15 PM Response to Reply #30 |
39. weak |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Myrina (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 05:50 PM Response to Reply #7 |
152. Indeed. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
StClone (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 07:48 PM Response to Original message |
8. Current SCOTUS rulings are blatantly activist! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 09:03 PM Response to Reply #8 |
18. I suspect what you really mean is that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Time for change (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 09:32 PM Response to Reply #18 |
26. Writing for the majority, Kennedy said |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 10:03 PM Response to Reply #26 |
35. What it sounds like to you |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kenfrequed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 09:13 AM Response to Reply #35 |
89. Feh |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 10:08 AM Response to Reply #89 |
96. under your view of the constitution |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kenfrequed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 12:03 PM Response to Reply #96 |
107. Sorry that doesn't work, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 12:39 PM Response to Reply #107 |
112. if the issue is whether corporations have rights under the first amendment |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kenfrequed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 02:25 PM Response to Reply #112 |
133. I made no concession |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 02:46 PM Response to Reply #133 |
135. sorry, but I'm still trying to figure out where in the constitution you find |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kenfrequed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 03:23 PM Response to Reply #135 |
141. The history is neither arcane nore cryptic. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 04:17 PM Response to Reply #141 |
146. according to Justice Stevens they are protected by the first amendment |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kenfrequed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 08:10 PM Response to Reply #146 |
172. hmm |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
StClone (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 10:03 PM Response to Reply #18 |
36. No not what I'm saying |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 05:19 AM Response to Reply #36 |
57. You don't get it either, do you? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Time for change (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 06:49 AM Response to Reply #57 |
64. Why is it a hard concept that the right of free speech applies only to persons? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 07:41 AM Response to Reply #64 |
78. do you disagree with decisions that accorded the NY Times Inc constitutional protection |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kenfrequed (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 12:09 PM Response to Reply #78 |
109. Uhm |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Time for change (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 01:55 PM Response to Reply #78 |
119. I think you just made my case |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 02:50 PM Response to Reply #119 |
137. define press |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Gaedel (802 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 07:43 AM Response to Reply #64 |
80. For the most part |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 06:55 PM Response to Reply #64 |
163. Then why did they think it necessary to specify "the people" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
shraby (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 01:05 PM Response to Reply #57 |
116. If corporations are to be considered as persons, then it stands |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 03:00 PM Response to Reply #116 |
140. and corporate ceos can be held criminally liable for actions taken under their watch |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sabrina 1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 07:56 PM Response to Original message |
10. Excellent OP. Thank you. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Supersedeas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 03:59 PM Response to Reply #10 |
143. Second that. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
martymar64 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 08:05 PM Response to Reply #10 |
170. And so many around here tried to pin it all on Nader |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LongTomH (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 08:06 PM Response to Original message |
11. Well Said, Sir! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 08:42 PM Response to Original message |
13. I'd also like to know why Donna Edwards thinks that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bluenorthwest (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 07:46 AM Response to Reply #13 |
81. You do not even understand the definition of the word 'corrupt' |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 06:58 PM Response to Reply #81 |
164. Since I didn't even use the word "corrupt" in my post |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Time for change (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 02:00 PM Response to Reply #13 |
121. Everyone knows that money has vast influence on the results of elections |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 07:58 PM Response to Reply #121 |
169. Hardly irrelevant |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Demeter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 08:54 PM Response to Original message |
15. Whatever It Takes |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hawkeye-X (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 09:06 PM Response to Original message |
19. Since 2000, I've been calling for impeachment of |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 06:33 AM Response to Reply #19 |
60. and yet no one has heeded your call. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ozymanithrax (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 09:10 PM Response to Original message |
20. The Congress can increase the number of justices in the Supreme Court... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Time for change (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 09:24 PM Response to Reply #20 |
25. True -- but I doubt very much that Feingold meant to recommend packing the court |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ozymanithrax (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 09:36 PM Response to Reply #25 |
28. Since he did not use the word "Impeach" I find it hard to accept that he is accepting impeachment. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Time for change (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 09:56 PM Response to Reply #28 |
32. Yes, the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 10:20 PM Response to Reply #32 |
41. grounds for impeachment? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ozymanithrax (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 10:24 PM Response to Reply #32 |
42. Actually, they are not obligated to anything except what the constituting, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Time for change (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 06:53 AM Response to Reply #42 |
65. If they didn't act in good faith, it was a violation of their oath of office |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 07:37 AM Response to Reply #65 |
75. having Congress investigate whether justices acted in "good faith" every time Congress |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Gaedel (802 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 10:04 AM Response to Reply #75 |
95. Bit of a precedent |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Time for change (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 02:03 PM Response to Reply #75 |
123. Dumb? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 02:47 PM Response to Reply #123 |
136. the standard you just articulated would allow congress to start an investigation |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Time for change (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 08:56 PM Response to Reply #136 |
176. Congress is already allowed to do that. They don't need me to give them that right |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ozymanithrax (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 08:31 AM Response to Reply #65 |
85. good faith is a judgment call. Most of the right thinks their judgement was in good faith. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Time for change (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 02:06 PM Response to Reply #85 |
124. So it's a judgment call. Congress has the right and responsibility to make judgments. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
G_j (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 09:36 PM Response to Original message |
27. don't think for a moment, the Republicans wouldn't try it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
humbled_opinion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 09:41 PM Response to Reply #27 |
29. Interesting that you say that.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Odin2005 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 09:57 PM Response to Original message |
33. The Fascist 5 need to be treated as the treasonous bastards they are. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlueIris (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 01:04 AM Response to Reply #33 |
51. I love you, Odin. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Odin2005 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 07:25 AM Response to Reply #51 |
71. Thanks! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cowman (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 06:21 PM Response to Reply #33 |
154. On what grounds |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Lord Magus (443 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 07:30 PM Response to Reply #154 |
168. I think the deliberate destruction of democracy counts as treason. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
amborin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 10:04 PM Response to Original message |
37. K&R |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Whisp (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 10:19 PM Response to Original message |
40. Next Step: A Corporation can run for Presidency. n't |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dr Morbius (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 10:44 PM Response to Original message |
43. I believe... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mmonk (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 10:52 PM Response to Original message |
44. I agree 100%. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bertman (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 11:00 PM Response to Original message |
45. Rec. Will read this through in detail tomorrow. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Greyhound (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 12:00 AM Response to Original message |
46. Auto K&R. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Time for change (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 02:08 PM Response to Reply #46 |
125. Thank you Greyhound |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kenny blankenship (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 12:16 AM Response to Original message |
48. Impeach |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 07:39 AM Response to Reply #48 |
76. since you are a constitutional scholar, I'm sure you know that what you are characterizing |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
newtothegame (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 12:37 AM Response to Original message |
50. If you're going to put the Supreme Court decision in quotes... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Time for change (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 06:56 AM Response to Reply #50 |
66. The stuff in parenthesis was not meant to be part of the quote. The rest of it is a quote. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 07:42 AM Response to Reply #66 |
79. usually "stuff" inside quotes is considered part of a quote. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eppur_se_muova (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 09:37 AM Response to Reply #66 |
91. That's what editorial brackets are for. Fairly standard convention. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Time for change (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 02:10 PM Response to Reply #91 |
127. Maybe I'll do that next time |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eppur_se_muova (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 02:56 PM Response to Reply #127 |
139. If they're editors, sure. :^D Heavy readers, probably. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
skepticscott (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 08:07 PM Response to Reply #127 |
171. When you put something inside quotes |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
anigbrowl (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Apr-14-10 03:34 PM Response to Reply #127 |
180. Not exactly |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
shraby (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 04:37 AM Response to Original message |
53. Kicking so I can find it tomorrow. Want to read this. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Orsino (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 04:43 AM Response to Original message |
54. ...by corrupt Senate. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cali (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 05:06 AM Response to Original message |
55. The OP simply wishful thinking. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Vattel (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 06:58 AM Response to Original message |
67. Come on now. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Time for change (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 02:18 PM Response to Reply #67 |
128. It's more complicated than that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Enthusiast (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 07:17 AM Response to Original message |
68. How could anyone believe |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Doctor_J (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 07:30 AM Response to Original message |
72. Bush v. Gore was the key |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Enrique (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 07:36 AM Response to Original message |
74. i'm sure the RW wants to impeach over decisions they don't like |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Greyhound (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 02:22 PM Response to Reply #74 |
131. Malfeasance does not equal "decisions they don't like". |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
amb123 (764 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 07:52 AM Response to Original message |
82. Don't suggest the Impeachment of Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia & Kennedy |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cowman (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 06:27 PM Response to Reply #82 |
157. On what fucking grounds? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Overseas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 08:16 AM Response to Original message |
84. K&R . //nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Javaman (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 08:56 AM Response to Original message |
86. Easily (sort of) solved. Obama could appoint, instead of one new judge.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Doctor_J (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 09:27 AM Response to Reply #86 |
90. This would require having a president with the FDR spirit |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Javaman (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 10:19 AM Response to Reply #90 |
97. LOL well said! LOL |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cali (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 10:26 AM Response to Reply #90 |
99. as you don't even seem to know- and it's pretty basic stuff dearie- |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Javaman (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 11:25 AM Response to Reply #99 |
102. Oh for the love of god... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 11:32 AM Response to Reply #102 |
105. sorry but you're mistaken if you're claiming the president can decide the size of the court |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Javaman (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 12:05 PM Response to Reply #105 |
108. No, duh. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 12:46 PM Response to Reply #108 |
115. your post upthread seemed to suggest it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 11:35 AM Response to Reply #90 |
106. it would require a president with no sense of history or politics |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cali (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 10:24 AM Response to Reply #86 |
98. no he couldn't. It would take Congressional action for him to be able to do that. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Javaman (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 11:28 AM Response to Reply #98 |
103. So you enjoy responding twice to the same issue? wow. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Time for change (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 02:20 PM Response to Reply #86 |
130. Not so easy |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TexasObserver (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 09:12 AM Response to Original message |
88. recommended |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
olegramps (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 09:51 AM Response to Original message |
93. Gore was absolutely wrong in conceding the election to Bush. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
totodeinhere (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 09:59 AM Response to Original message |
94. Your headline is misleading. Feingold only "suggested" impeachment in your mind... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
defendandprotect (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 10:44 AM Response to Original message |
100. Good read -- thank you -- and we should remember that it isn't only the |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
smoogatz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 10:47 AM Response to Original message |
101. I think you may be reading in to his original statement a bit. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Time for change (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 02:25 PM Response to Reply #101 |
132. Yes, I do |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
smoogatz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 05:56 PM Response to Reply #132 |
153. Too slow for you, you mean. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cali (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 06:26 PM Response to Reply #132 |
155. nonsense. Russ Feingold knows that there is NO viability to impeaching |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Enrique (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 11:30 AM Response to Original message |
104. sad to see Feingold's name being used like this |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Uzybone (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 12:30 PM Response to Original message |
110. More empty, useless words from Feingold. He knows there will be no impeachment |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 12:41 PM Response to Reply #110 |
113. well, its hard to say that Feingold's words on impeachment were empty when he didn't say anything |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Uzybone (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 12:45 PM Response to Reply #113 |
114. True. The writer who finagled impeachment out of Feingolds statement is the real dummy |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
midnight (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 04:44 PM Response to Reply #110 |
148. I hope you're joking. Because If your not, I would be interested in some facts.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Martin Eden (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 12:38 PM Response to Original message |
111. K&R - Excellent work! n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
proReality (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 01:24 PM Response to Original message |
117. K&R n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RedCloud (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 01:59 PM Response to Original message |
120. Congress should just add two more justices to overturn those suckers! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
totodeinhere (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 04:21 PM Response to Reply #120 |
147. Yea right. It sure worked out well when FDR tried to pack the court. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RedCloud (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 02:00 PM Response to Original message |
122. Self deplete. dupe of the corporations. Internet crazy double play! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Echo In Light (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 02:09 PM Response to Original message |
126. k/r |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Whisp (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 02:18 PM Response to Original message |
129. I really think this point should be Pushed: Can a Corporation run for Presidency? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 04:01 PM Response to Reply #129 |
144. where did the Supremes say a corporation can run for president? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Whisp (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 05:44 PM Response to Reply #144 |
150. if a corporation is a person why can't it? the only qualifications needed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 06:26 PM Response to Reply #150 |
156. because its not a natural person |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Whisp (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 06:40 PM Response to Reply #156 |
158. thanks for calling me a simple minded non-progressive there buster. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 06:49 PM Response to Reply #158 |
160. if the shoe fits. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Whisp (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 06:54 PM Response to Reply #160 |
162. not at this time it doesn't, that was my whole point. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
valerief (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 02:53 PM Response to Original message |
138. Oh, Sen. Superfinegold, if it could only happen! Get those SCOTUS bastards |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Forkboy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 05:03 PM Response to Original message |
149. A welcome can of worms. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Uncle Joe (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 06:51 PM Response to Original message |
161. Kicked and recommended. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
fascisthunter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 07:09 PM Response to Original message |
165. Kick |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
deaniac21 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Apr-14-10 02:17 PM Response to Original message |
179. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Sun Dec 01st 2024, 03:25 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC