Justice

Cindy didn't start a war on bullshit so anything she does gets kinda eclipsed by 2000 dead americans and the people responsible. Wow indeed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ooooookay. Just because your entire story was derailed because it turns out that this bitch looks like she's using her son's sacrifice for her own personal gain doesn't mean you have to resort to irrelevant comparisons on the war itself. But hey, try to keep to positive! Maybe next time your bullshit story won't hoist your petard!

Wow. Moms make the hippie movement look bad.

I'd rather say that Earth was built to order by Slartibartfast for pan-galactic beings disguised as mice.

"Look, I have it on the highest authority around: The AD&D Creature Guide."

Dude, your country had a party devoted to the repeal of the law of Gravity. And it got 40,000 votes. You really don't have room to talk. But this is idiotic. While evolution has 'holes', there's more sensible proof to it than there ever was to simple literal creationism. I always thought the compromise is the easiest way to look at it, and it's not like it's a direct contradiction when you really think about it. Personally, I full endorse Norse myth as the correct theory to be taught in schools. It'd be a hell of a lot more interesting than anything Christianity could summon up.

You're joking, right? Every President takes a break, idiot. Even FDR did. People need little breaks to keep going, and it isn't as though it's a complete vacation: Presidents still discuss and plan things while on vacation. It's simply a change in setting. It isn't as though he is dictating ground tactics or something like that. Perhaps you can tell us what he really should be doing for this war that he hasn't tried already. Or you can just sort of eat your own story since, well, it looks like the King talked to the displeased peasant.

Actually, it's the entire driving concept behind American Dad.

Pfft. All I have to say is you're saying people who are helping people out in their 'political battles' shouldn't get Supreme Court positions. This means no Attorney Generals, Solicitor Generals, anyone who has ever worked as a legal clerk for any of the above, and many many others. You're trying to judge him on one single point in his career, saying "That he was obviously put into office because of that", ignoring the fact that he's been working for various Administrations and has oh, a few dozen Bi-partisan supporters. To think he got this simply because 'He helped Bush in a political battle' is narrow-minded, especially when looking at the amount of people coming out of the woodwork to support him. You've tried to somehow downplay one of the biggest election mistakes ever (And it was a Constitutional Crisis: State Power in their own electoral process in a federal election, with State and Federal governments being the conflicting two, with it finally ending with the SC overruling the State Court), and consequentially, one of the most important SC decisions ever (In effect, ending the election for President by determining that the Recount was unconsitutional in its current form). Yes, there is value and impact by ending a federal election for President, and it does have an impact, whether you'd like to admit it or not. Trying to say "We won't know for years to come" is just ignoring the fact that it ended a month of legal battles for who would become President, and it allowed us to even have a president without resorting to Congress. Hell, none of the last 5 years might have happened had they not done what they did. That's a pretty big impact, I'd say. You still haven't named any other election debacles that were larger outside of the 1800 election and 1876, which I named for you. You ignored me saying To go on your little 'liar, liar, pants on fire', which is useless when I explained the above, and for conventional dating purposes, 2000 is generally considered the start of the new millenium and century, even though there technically wasn't a year 0.

Uh... Not really. 1876 and 1800, were perhaps bigger. But there are very, very few election debacles that top 2000, especially considering it went on for over a month and finally ended in the Supreme Court. Nice try for the downplay, though. Uh... one of the problems came as what we were supposed to do without a President, and what was going to happen if the Florida electors didn't vote, putting it into sudden death overtime in Congress. While Constitutional Crisis usually come into play with conflicts between branches, some situtations that were never planned or have ever happened (indeed, recounts have occurred, but not for a months time, nor with any of the baggage that this had). Oh, and the entire debate on whether or not the SC could legally intervine or not when the State SC had decided. Holy shit, I said in the second post it was one of the most important cases ever! Wow, this is a conflict how? And uh, just so you know, this case is listed as 2000, so none of those really apply for the 'century'. Welcome to century 21, man. Obviously you don't understand the concept that I did call it importance, but I didn't weigh it against other important cases. So excuse me, Mr. Y2Jerk, I do believe you're an overreactive partisan idiot. Holy shit, one can't take a friendly joke. Never mind, you're hopeless. I said 'ever' as well, you moron. Jesus, you are so concerned with trapping me you don't even read half stuff. This is a joke. You're trying to downplay the immediate importance of a case that basically helped end one of the greatest election screw-ups ever. You act there wasn't any sort of stake or importance in it at all when both sides basicaly had access to greatest lawyers of our time. Talk about partisan hackery.

Win political battles? God, seriously man. He was up for the appealate spot back in the early 90s after his work in the Reagan and Bush Administrations. His record seems very solid. He has numerous, numerous endorsements from both sides of the aisle. That just raises the question: why would someone who is up for an appointment to the judiciary working for Bush's legal team? Perhaps because Democrats blocked his confirmation to a higher position, he's well-known to anyone on the conservative side, and he'd probably be looking for a high-profile case to put on his resume. Well, the fact is they chose the guy because he was that good. If you got the chance to procure the services of a guy who might be SC-Material, would you waste that opportunity? It basically ended the biggest election debacle ever. That's pretty big, any which way you cut it. I really don't understand how you can try to undercut how big Bush v. Gore really was. Hey, let's jump to conclusions out of nowhere, eh? No, it ended the entire debacle of a recount, and ended one helluva Constitutional crisis. That's pretty 'big' in my book. So I'm not saying the Court 'gave' Bush the White House. I'm saying that it was one of the largest cases of our times. When two potential Presidential Candidates are arguing over a disputed election recount. That's a big deal, especially in the immediate. Are you trying to deny that Bush v. Gore wasn't important at all? Uh, dude, it brought an end to a huge Constitutional Crisis in the making fairly decisively. The immediate impact was pretty big, I'd say. Congratulations for putting words in my mouth. First off, I never weighed in on where it stood, but it was nonetheless a very important decision. I'd say it ranks up there because it's the first time ever that two presidential candidates have ever (And hopefully will ever) come to the Court disputing the methodology of election system, particularly state recounts. The players involved and the stakes were high, and even if it was a one-shot deal, it was fairly important. That fact that you can't get over Bush v. Gore being a pretty crucial case for it's help in ending the 2000 Election Crisis, averting what could have been a veritable shitstorm in Congress, is mindboggling. Things don't need to be a 'precedent case' to be important. Oh, and I'd say your priorities are mixed up on your cases: Seriously, no M v. M? Schenck? Miranda? Griswold? If you gonna try and take me to school on what's important and what isn't, how about getting some better cases? Brown is about the only one I care about in that when it comes to precendent importance. Talk about 'an exaggeration of vast proportions'...

Win political battles? God, seriously man. He was up for the appealate spot back in the early 90s after his work in the Reagan and Bush Administrations. His record seems very solid. He has numerous, numerous endorsements from both sides of the aisle. And this is supposed to be an obvious Bush payoff? He's not being rewarded for 'helping Bush win political battles'. Looking at his record now, with his long history in the Reagan and Bush Administrations, he seems like he was slated as a SC choice LONG before GW was around. His fast-track was simply delayed by a Democratic Senate and then a Democratic president. He's obviously qualified, and the amount of bipartisan support that seems to be coming out for him makes it seem as though he was going to be a #1 choice sometime in the future, no matter who the President was. Perhaps if he had ONLY worked on that case and was getting in, you'd have an argument. But this guy looks like he was a high-riser years ago and he's finally reaching the summit. He's not getting the spot because he helped Bush's team in 2000, he was on Bush's team in 2000 because he was a possible future Supreme Court Justice. I'm sorry, but Bush v. Gore was one of the highest-stakes trials in the history of the US, and one of the biggest decisions ever. Seriously, there aren't many that are more important to the United States than this one's with its aftermath. Being chosen for one of those legal teams is more than party hackery, it's an honor.

From what I've read so far, he sounds fairly good. The fact that he passed so easily through his CoA confirmation, even after being part of the Bush team in 2000 would suggest quite simply that his record is stronger than what any of you will admit. Perhaps while catching breathes between "OMG ABORTION" and "OMG BUSH V. GORE" you could, maybe, check his record. From what I've seen, he's gotten glowing reviews and recommendations from almost everyone. So please, put up a reason why he shouldn't be on the court. We're innocent 'til proven guilty, aren't we? On JOTW: 8 years? Want this to end a little too soon? I dunno if I'd call that 'cronyism'. Just because he was nominated before doesn't mean he's OMG BUSH PAWN. It just shows that he was something back then, and he's something now. I mean, what if it had been 4 years earlier and Reagan had nominated him? I don't see that as a problem, just that he's been on the docket waiting for a chance. I can understand other accusations of 'cronyism', but this... this doesn't seem like it. Hell, any SC nomination from a Republican would naturally be old enough that he was involved with the 1st Bush or even Reagan. It's just to be expected because lawyers, clerks, and judges have a long shelf life.

Dear God, this is so fucking stupid. A literal shit-ton of the best lawyers in the country worked on the Bush v. Gore case for the Supreme Court. People like NoCal who are going "Wow, how couldn't we expect that?", there are few top lawyers who didn't work on that. Seriously, the best were called out 2000, and for either side, serving in that dibacle is still a pretty big badge of honor: This isn't something they'd risk a party hack on, this is something they brought out the biggest and the best for. So please, when talking about that as some sort of disadvantage, consider that he was called in to work on the biggest case in the century or so. That should speak to some credentials. Jesus, stop looking at a bunch of little sensationalistic, partisan details and actually consider qualifications for once. Christ. And I'll even say I'm not completely sold on this guy yet, but I'm not being as dumb as some people are for dismissing him out of hand because 1) One issue they disagree with him on 2) OMG HE WAS PART OF BUSH V. GORE.

Don't worry. We're expecting the arsenic to start working on Breyers and Ginsberg soon enough.

You know, when you look at everything in terms of Roe v. Wade, it'll always be controversial. Seriously, would it be completely okay if he favored someone who supported it? Now that that's out of the way, what are his other views?

I'd like to paraphase one of my favorite quotes and say 'A million times better' still doesn't mean good. Mallard, I would think, is fairly old. And even if it's been around forever, it still doesn't mean it's good or even decent in any sense of the word. Bah. Again, not a show of quality (Far Side, anyone?). Let's all agree that both of them suck ass, along with most political cartoons strips.

The episode was better than last weeks, but they did go a bit over the top with the pop culture stuff. But the A-Ha reference was gold. Seriously, if they could limit themselves to a few quality references like that I'd be a lot happier with the show as a whole.

No, the better question is why would they have a covert agent working right at CIA Headquarters, and why they'd think that's covert. I don't care why they want an investigation (As we've seen enough high-level leaks against the Bush Administration that haven't yet warranted an investigation), moreso their idea of having a covert operative that openly works at their base in Langley as a smart decision.

That would be news to the CIA. Wouldn't it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, how covert can you be when you actually work in the building?

Dooku was a far more interesting character. If they had shown him maybe in a cameo role in the first one trying to rally around some anti-corruption standards for the Senate, then in the second one explain his role against the Senate a little more (Maybe show a televised speech at that bar, talking about how the Republic no longer stands for what it used to), he would have been much better. Maul is pretty 1-dimensional when you look at it (I hate Jedi! Grr!). Dooku gives you the full 3D.

Rehnquist rocks. Far and away my favorite judge on the bench.

I'm a limited edition from the Franklin Mint, that's why.

Seriously, I just have to say this again: This is quite possibly the lamest come back of all time. Dear God...

What happened was that he said that Iraq had no dealings with Nigeria for Uranium and such. In fact, the Senate Intelligence Committee basically said this was one of the only parts that was right. I mean, the guy went through all Official channels. Like that'll turn up anything.

As much as I hate Wilson for being an idiot in general (Considering he was pretty much dead wrong on his findings), Karl Rove should be punished for this. Of course, if this whole "double super secret background" thing is true (Which it looks as though it is).