The Independent State Legislature Doctrine

[Bandito]

You need to ask for your money back for that masters degree, dito
Once again, don't care about the D or R, am neither.
It's about his character, not his policies, been pretty clear on that too.
What are you cooking today?
Made some spaghetti squash with tomatoes, garlic, basil (fresh from the garden, tomatoes too)
bacon, onion, chives, S & P, little cajun, covered with cheese yesterday. Pretty tasty, give it a try.
Don't over cook it, 20 min at 400* and you're good to go.
Bon appetit.

He has impeccable character. Like to see all the skeletons in your closet. He will be confirmed. And thanks. How is your wife doing? She is married to a real loser.

[DMac]

I didn't witness impeccable character, guess we've got different definitions.
Not too many skeletons in my closet, I have no trouble owning up to my past.
Got plenty to own up to...been thrown in the drunk tank, DWI...see how much
I care about the drinking?
Neither a wife or loser in this house...you know all that stuff about assume, right?

[Bandito]

I didn't witness impeccable character, guess we've got different definitions.
Not too many skeletons in my closet, I have no trouble owning up to my past.
Got plenty to own up to...been thrown in the drunk tank, DWI...see how much
I care about the drinking?
Neither a wife or loser in this house...you know all that stuff about assume, right?

Well I am sorry.

[runrussellrun]

On the various capitalized points, you are simply flat wrong on the timetable. Kavanaugh had not been nominated when Ford first attempted to tell her story to Feinstein, much less to the various other people last summer and years earlier. Those folks are all available to corroborate that fact. Under oath.


I couple that with the various squirming and obfuscations and outright untruths and it's enough for me, absent knowing that the two more credible accusers were flat mistaken.

SO the date on the Blasey-Ford letter is wrong? (july 30th )

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/16/politics ... index.html

Kav was nominated on July 9th. I may be a ten year graduate of a state university, but the 9th is 21 days before the 30th.

Where you getting YOUR facts from?

[DMac]

Double meaning here, I guess, russy. For the record (permanent I suppose...don't know about the drunk tank incidents, but the DWI(s)...one UI) fer sure. All many decades ago. Nary an incident with the marijuana though, guess I'm clean when it comes to that.
glass10

[DMac]

Guess dito, masters degree and all, doesn't get the wink emoji, eh?

[Bandito]

Guess dito, masters degree and all, doesn't get the wink emoji, eh?

I am actually a white trash Ginseng farmer from Kentucky glass10

[jhu72]

….

CONGRESS is the problem. Something about some stupid US Constitution and some stupid article that is NEVER enforced. Yup, pretends don't care about 435

The portion of the Constitution you are refering to ARTICLE THE FIRST, contained in the Amendments to the Constitution WAS NEVER RATIFIED by the requisite number of states, so of course it has never been enforced. The congress manages the issue you are concerned about through Apportionment and Reapportionment legislation. The 435 number comes from the 1929 version of the bill. Two of the original first 12, were never ratified, leaving us with 10 Amendments making up the Bill of Rights.

This has never been "ratified"? You are 100% sure of this? (and Kentucky & Connecticut did ratify )

Article I (Article 1 - Legislative)
Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 2
1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.2 The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

Unless, of course, part 5 of this section (Impeachment) isn't legal either. The way I read this document is there never was a need for Article of the First in the first place.
Being elected every two year and having to be aged 25, guess that was never ratified either?

"Article the first" and "Article 1" are NOT the same thing. Yes I am very certain. The section of the amendments you are so spun up about was never ratified BY THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF STATES.

You might want to read up on your history of the Bill of Rights. This was a proposed Amendment Article that was never ratified, same for "Article the second" as shown on the linked copy of the Constitution.

The Constitution. You can clearly see by going to the section of the document at the beginning of the amendments. Immediately after the two unratified
proposed Amendments is the First Amendment, labeled Article 1 (of the Amendments).

You're welcome.

[jhu72]

“...and we really need to find out who leaked Ford's identity...truly, well, deplorable.”

Another shiny object to help you miss the point. Benghazi much?

Exactly. This was all a democratic conspiracy to get Hillary and Bill their revenge.

Great lets find out who leaked, if there was a "leak". What does that get you? Its not a crime. Nothing about it is legally actionable, that I can see.

.... and it was not Dianne Feinstein. The time line does not line up and the reporter reporting the story first says it was not Feinstein.

Really? Why wouldn't you want to know? What are you afraid of finding out? BTW, not once have I accused Feinstein of anything.

In Feinstein's own words: "She apparently was stalked by the press, felt that what happened, she was forced to come forward and her greatest fear was realized. She’s been harassed, she’s had death threats, and she’s had to flee her home."

If Feinstein is so concerned about how Ford was treated, and of being accused of the leak, wouldn't she want to get to the bottom of it?

Yes, sure. As I said, great track it down. I just don't think it is such an important issue. Its point is politics. Don't see how knowing impacts anything else. I would guess Feinstein in background probably is seeing if she can find out. It's not the top of her list - I am sure of that.

[youthathletics]

Maybe she could also explain why she has Sen. Murkowski cornered on 26-Sept..who's the bully now?

[ggait]

Seems very likely that Mitch told Murkowski he was fine with her voting against if she wanted to.

Because he had the votes without her (Flake, Collins, Pence). In which case Manchin wouldn't matter either.

Seems like a big musical chairs game where they all were trying to avoid being the ONE to determine the outcome.

[jhu72]

Apparently the American Bar Association is re-evaluating Bart O. prior to the final vote. His rating currently stands at "well qualified" and had their endorsement until withdrawn after last weeks performance.


PS -

So Collins says the ABA gave Bart O. their highest ranking. Which is true. She has laid a trap for herself if the ABA now comes out with a lowered ranking, before the vote.

[Typical Lax Dad]

But the gloves DID fit. Marsha Clark.....proof that we need more Med schools than law schools

OJ was innocent. The prosecution didn’t find anything. All women falsely accusing guys..Unless it’s Central Park...(not you) the hypocrisy on this board is laughable. Poor Prep school boys lives can be ruined by these lying women....

The problem is this usurps the rule of law and innocence until proven guilty concept that is one of the foundations of our Constitutional Republic. If this was the other way around- A Republican falsely accusing a Democrat, you'd be up in arms about it and rightfully so. So would I. This is purely political and that is the problem. You are so blind by your hate for Trump that you can't see facts and truth. I deal with facts, not emotions.

OJ is innocent. Fact!

[jhu72]

Maybe she could also explain why she has Sen. Murkowski cornered on 26-Sept..who's the bully now?

The cartoon at the bottom made me laugh. Feinstein has nothing to explain, well no more than McConnell does.

[youthathletics]

Yeah, I live up here, right across the border (about two miles from my home) in NH, and read all about it, YA. She wins with 63% of the vote up here. She could be a statesperson and a voice of reason; but she ends up acting all "Margaret Chase Smith," and then rolling over and being with Mitch and the President. Her act is growing old. Take a look at her twitter page, and note the photo at the top:

https://twitter.com/SenatorCollins?ref_ ... r%5Eauthor

The very voters who might someday make her pay for helping to place a hyper-partisan, aging frat boy on the Supreme Court. We'll see.

And of course it's not bribery; in fact, that statement is telling. Opponents mounting a campaign to let a politician know that an issue is important enough to get people that invested in a new Senator is hardly "bribery." And suggesting that it is is simply incumbent hubris.

Sounds like she is currently doing her best to make the case for a Yes vote, and talk to her constituents to prove that the metoo movement is legitimate, but we as Americans need facts to prove our claims.

EDIT: Good Lord Sen. Collins.....enough already, you are holding us hostage on a Friday afternoon.

LIVE STREAM: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW0mJ21n6Zc

[seacoaster]

Collins giving an exegesis on naivety.

[youthathletics]

That is one interpretation.

To end the work with a little humor I though this was hilarious and quite true: https://twitter.com/BKFUniversity/statu ... 1597479937

[jhu72]

Collins speech served her purpose. I thought she was less fair to Dr. Ford than the facts would lead a fair person. Women will pick up on this. She did not purchase herself any grace.


The battle goes on. She will be a casualty, no matter which way she votes.

[jhu72]

Collins giving an exegesis on naivety.

I had exegesis once, a little penicillin cleared it right up.

[seacoaster]

Collins giving an exegesis on naivety.

I had exegesis once, a little penicillin cleared it right up.

I am going to clear mine up with a glass of Oban. Or two.