Calling what's been happening "unprecedented obstructionism," Senator Bill Frist has announced that he will seek confirmation next week for two of the judges Democrats have worked to block, essentially signalling that his finger is poised and ready to push the button to launch the "nuclear option."
“Priscilla Owen, to serve as a judge for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Janice Rogers Brown, to serve as a judge for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, will be the nominees of focus,” the statement said.
Frist’s announcement cleared the way for a momentous showdown that blends constitutional and political issues — the powers of the legislative branch to advise and consent in a president’s nominees and the ability of a political minority to influence the outcome.
Let's have a good clean fight!
Edward: Let's have a good clean fight!
You must be addressing this solely to those who oppose the Nuclear Option, given that its deployment is, in and of itself, fighting dirty.
Posted by: Gromit | May 13, 2005 at 04:00 PM
I'll be in the shower, but let me know when the eye-gouging starts.
Posted by: John Thullen | May 13, 2005 at 04:02 PM
Gromit,
I don't think it's a given they'll get the votes to change the rules...I mean fight clean toward that vote.
If they change the rules via a good clean fight, however, I'll say the rules are changed. That's it. Of course, there's no changing them back then...and the Dems WILL be the majority again, so the GOP better be sure they like what they're sowing.
Posted by: Edward_ | May 13, 2005 at 04:08 PM
Edward: actually, I disagree. Changing the rules requires 67 votes. They surely don't have that many; the whole reason they need to change the rules is because they don't have the 60 votes needed to break the filibuster. For this reason, they will break the rules in order to change them. If they do this, the rules will not, in my book, be changed. Not that that will stop e.g. Owen from being confirmed, of course.
Posted by: hilzoy | May 13, 2005 at 04:15 PM
Stygius comment
Just giving LAT another link, and credit where credit is due. The comment is directly about the Boxer hold on Bolton, which requires 60 votes to break. Since any vote on Bolton will come after the judges, the connection to the "nuclear option" should be obvious.
umm, fallout?
Posted by: bob mcmanus | May 13, 2005 at 04:34 PM
So let me get this... voting to change the rules is fighiting dirty. I could buy that if there wasn't going to be a vote about it! Maybe if we didn't have an election in 2004.
With that mentality I bet you all wish we still used the Aritcles of Confederation.
Posted by: wwc | May 13, 2005 at 04:47 PM
Echoing Hilzoy:
It cannot be sufficiently emphasized that the Nuclear Option requires the presiding officer of the Senate to lie through his teeth about a matter of plain and public fact.
At some point in the sequence of events, the Parliamentarian will be called upon to offer his "interpretation" of whether the phrase "two-thirds", in the text of the Senate Rules, means two-thirds. The Parliamentarian will state unequivocally that it does.
The presiding officer will then claim that "two-thirds" does not mean two-thirds.
It will be a lie, pure and simple.
It is misleading to describe the Republicans' Nuclear Option as though it was merely a matter of having the presiding officer over-rule the Parliamentarian's interpretation. It makes it look as though there is some room for doubt about what the rules say. And it makes it sound as though some functionary whom no one has heard of will be attempting to thwart the will of various famous elected representatives.
It is also misleading to say that the Republicans are simply going to be changing the rules. The Senate Rules include very explicit procedures for how rules can be changed. The Republicans are unable to change the rules, because they do not have the votes. So they will lie about what the rules say. That is their Nuclear Option.
Posted by: Tad Brennan | May 13, 2005 at 04:50 PM
The presiding officer will then claim that "two-thirds" does not mean two-thirds.
To the Republicans' "war on science," we can now add the "war on math." Next up: pi = 3, just like the Good Book saith.
Posted by: Anderson | May 13, 2005 at 04:52 PM
To officially change rules they need 2/3rds vote right?
To end the fillibuster they need 3/5ths right?
But to table a debate or put a 'hold' on a rule change they just need a simple majority. Tricky tricky.
Playing fair is not really an option when they plan to brute force a rule change.
Posted by: carsick | May 13, 2005 at 05:00 PM
The presiding officer will then claim that "two-thirds" does not mean two-thirds.
I have to run, but isn't the point not that 2/3 != 2/3 but rather that the presiding officer will claim -- contrary to the Parliamentarian's ruling and, well, fact -- that the rules specifying a 2/3 majority do not apply to this vote?
Posted by: Anarch | May 13, 2005 at 05:01 PM
"Changing the rules requires 67 votes."
I would think that a majority of senators could make the rules what they wish. If 51 senators say "the rule change rule is changed to 51 votes," the rule change rule is changed to 51 votes. Whether they actually go through the motions of doing so is besides the point (though saying 2/3 is not 2/3 is dumb).
There was a good commentary on this on Findlaw a while back by Vik Amar.
Posted by: Ugh | May 13, 2005 at 05:04 PM
That may not have been clear enough. My understanding is that they will challenge the existing rule. Then they will put a 'hold' on the rule while the 'debate' it. ipso facto Rule Gone for all practical purposes.
The democrats and a handful of moderates don't have the 3/5ths to break the 'hold'.
That's what I thought their plan was but please correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by: carsick | May 13, 2005 at 05:05 PM
Edward: I don't think it's a given they'll get the votes to change the rules...I mean fight clean toward that vote.
They are already fighting dirty with this campaign of lies about the true meaning of "advice and consent" and about the ethicality of going nuclear. I respect that you really like to give your opponents the benefit of the doubt, but our guys have already been sucker-punched and had sand thrown in their eyes. Now is not the time to expect a sudden fit of good faith from team Frist; rather, it is the time to brace for the inevitable knee to the groin, and to steel our resolve not to respond in kind.
Posted by: Gromit | May 13, 2005 at 05:15 PM
Here's part of Salon's primer:
First, Frist brings one of the stalled judicial nominees to the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote. The Democrats filibuster. The Republicans try to cut off debate through a cloture motion brought under Rule XXII, which requires the support of 60 senators. The cloture motion fails. At that point, the Congressional Research Service says, one of at least two things could happen.
In the first variation, the man presiding over the Senate at that moment, probably Vice President Dick Cheney or Senate President Pro Tempore Ted Stevens, could declare Rule XXII unconstitutional and rule that, when it comes to judicial nominations, debate can be cut off by a simple majority vote. Democrats could appeal that ruling, which would then set off another round of filibustering. But a Republican senator could move to table the appeal -- a move that's not subject to filibuster -- and then Republicans could vote by a simple majority to do so. That would effectively dismiss the appeal, allowing the ruling from the presiding officer to stand. Rule XXII would be declared unconstitutional, and the majority could end debate on any judicial nominee with a simple majority vote.
In the second variation -- and this part is required reading only for the Robert's Rules of Order fetishists among us -- a Republican senator, fresh off the loss on the initial cloture motion, could raise a point of order arguing that the requirement of a three-fifths vote to cut off debate on judicial nominees is unconstitutional. The presiding officer could submit that question to the full Senate for a vote. Under the Standing Rules, that vote would be subject to a filibuster, too. But the presiding officer could simply declare that it wasn't. That would lead, as in the first variation, to another appeal, another tabling motion, and then another simple majority vote on the question whether Rule XXII is unconstitutional.
Posted by: carsick | May 13, 2005 at 05:25 PM
Following Ugh, I looked up the two pieces by Vic Amar:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20030613.html
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20030627.html
They require me to retract my characterization of the Nuclear Option.
The presiding officer does *not* need to deny that the Rules, as currently written, require a supermajority for their amendment.
What he must deny is that those rules are binding on the current Senate.
As Amar explains, what is at issue is whether the current Senate should be bound by rules enacted by an earlier Senate, in particular the supermajoritarian rule for rule-change.
The Constitution (1.5.2) simply says:
"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."
The expulsion-clause is clearly super-majoritarian; the rule-determination clause may be assumed to be merely majoritarian exactly because of the absence of the stipulation.
Of course, a mere majority *may* create a new law saying that, henceforth, all subsequent rule-changes require a supermajority (as in fact it did).
But how long does "henceforth" last? That's the question: do the rules of the earlier Senate session still bind every later session, or are they good only throughout the session in which they were enacted?
Amar canvases arguments that earlier Senatorial sessions should *not* take precedence over later Senatorial sessions, in which case we recur to the mere majoritarian rule.
I did not see him make the contrary point, that so far as I know every session has hitherto *held* itself to be bound by the rules as handed on by the previous session. I.e., the Senate has always *acted* as a body that is bound by its previous precedents, and not as one that has to come up with rules for its conduct afresh at every session.
Unfortunately, if we try to make that into a reason why the current Senate should also hold itself so bound, we reproduce Hume's paradox about induction, so I won't go there.
Okay--not "lie through his teeth". If Vic Amar thinks there is room for interpretation, then I have to agree.
Posted by: Tad Brennan | May 13, 2005 at 05:32 PM
In other words, don't wear a white suit to a mud fight unless you don't mind getting it dirty.
Thankfully, Reid's comfortable in dirty white suits because he knows it's just mud. He also seems to know where the pile of manure is. Someone may not come out of this fight so clean smelling.
Senate republicans know this. They also don't have time to forget yesterday's Bolton hearing.
Posted by: carsick | May 13, 2005 at 05:35 PM
I took my conlaw II class from him, he was very good.
Only time I saw him caught off guard by a question was when someone asked him why Brennan/Marshall were always upholding affirmative action type remedies for African Americans but striking down anything that might "stigmatize" women as inferior (even when such things treated men worse than women). He said "good point."
Posted by: Ugh | May 13, 2005 at 05:37 PM
Hmmm, Tad. I'd take "Each House" to mean the HoR on one hand, and the Senate on the other. Not the 109th Congress vs. the 108th; I don't think that makes any sense.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | May 13, 2005 at 06:07 PM
Sorry--"Vik", not "Vic". And I have never met him, but I have met his namesake and nephew, Vikram, several times (e.g. at the pool, at picnics, etc.--nice kid).
I think his articles ((sorry, the Uncle's) on Findlaw also don't emphasize sufficiently how many things go "kablooey!" if the Republican leadership takes this stance on the rule-change rule.
If the claim is that they are simply not bound by rules made by any previous Senate, then after making that claim they really should not do anything--not a cloture vote, not a nomination fight, not nothing--until they vote through a new set of Rules for the Senate.
Until they do that, *nothing* binds them, other than the Constitution (which simply says "each house shall make rules etc."). Not the previously enacted rules, not the precedents of Senatorial custom, not even Roberts Rules (so no point doing the Nuclear Option and *then* calling a "point of order"--"points of order", like the rest of Roberts rules, belong to the *old* set of rules which have just been declared null and void).
Furthermore, they are at the same time declaring that the Parliamentarian is out of a job, since that office is devoted to figuring out how the traditional rules, customs, and precedents, along with Roberts Rules, should be applied to new problems that arise in the new session. Well, that's all out, too, between the time when they pull the Nuclear trigger and the time when they vote in a new set of rules.
At a minimum, may I make the observation that no one who goes this route has any right to style himself a "conservative" ever again? But perhaps that's otiose with this lot, anyhow.
(And it's usually called Hume's "problem" of induction, not "paradox"--typing too fast again).
Posted by: Tad Brennan | May 13, 2005 at 06:12 PM
Slartibartfast--
If Amar is right, then you've got a quarrel with the people who want to try the Nuclear Option. Not with me.
And to be fair, I don't think the *whole* argument for why 108 cannot bind 109 depends on the phrase "each house". It also has to do with more abstract concerns about the relative power of the two sessions, and what parade of horribles might result from allowing earlier to bind later.
But follow the links and see what you think.
Posted by: Tad Brennan | May 13, 2005 at 06:14 PM
If the claim is that they are simply not bound by rules made by any previous Senate, then after making that claim they really should not do anything--not a cloture vote, not a nomination fight, not nothing--until they vote through a new set of Rules for the Senate.
Is it only the House that votes on new rules each time? I would say the response would be that "we're just changing the rule change rule and then the cloture rule, and all the other rules remain in place."
But you're right, Amar doesn't go into all the other implications, but I think his essential point, that the 108th Senate can't bind the 109th, is sound. I would think that if a bill was enacted that said "this law can't be repealed except by a 2/3 vote of the senate," wouldn't stand muster. Same thing goes for senate rules.
Posted by: Ugh | May 13, 2005 at 06:21 PM
"we're just changing the rule change rule and then the cloture rule, and all the other rules remain in place."
Yes, but the principle on which they are claiming the license to do that is the principle that 108 simply has no binding force on 109. So unless they *explicitly* say "we hereby adopt all of the rules of 108 except the rule-change rule and the cloture rule", then they will be proceeding without any rules at all.
His essential point is sound? Hey, are you saying Slartibartfast is wrong?
Posted by: Tad Brennan | May 13, 2005 at 06:27 PM
More from Salon:
Wait a minute. Cheney gets to declare unconstitutional -- a power usually left to the courts -- a rule of the Senate, the authority for which is vested in the Senate, to get the president's judicial nominees through Congress? What about the separation of powers?
You catch on quick. As McCain has said, "It's not called 'nuclear' for nothing."
But can they really do that? Can Frist and the Republicans who support him just change the rules of the Senate in the middle of the game?
Yes and no. Yes, they can; and no, they can't without breaking Senate precedent. As the Congressional Research Service explains, each of the variations set forth above "would require that one or more of the Senate's precedents be overturned or interpreted otherwise than in the past."
In the first variation, the presiding officer -- Cheney or Stevens -- would take it upon himself to declare Rule XXII unconstitutional. Riddick's, considered the bible of Senate procedure, has this to say about that: "Under the precedents of the Senate, the presiding officer has no authority to pass upon a constitutional question, but must submit it to the Senate for its decision." By unilaterally deeming Rule XXII unconstitutional, Cheney or Stevens would be violating that precedent.
If the presiding officer chose the second variation instead -- that is, if he submitted the question of the constitutionality of Rule XXII to the full Senate for a vote -- the Congressional Research Service says he'd still have to break with Senate precedent by declaring that the question isn't subject to debate and therefore isn't subject to a filibuster by the Democrats.
Posted by: carsick | May 13, 2005 at 06:48 PM
Tad Brennan said:
If the claim is that they are simply not bound by rules made by any previous Senate, then after making that claim they really should not do anything... until they vote through a new set of Rules for the Senate.... Until they do that, *nothing* binds them... Not the previously enacted rules, not the precedents of Senatorial custom, not even Roberts Rules."
No rules at all, except what the majority Party allows?
Seriously, is that what the Grand Old Panksters are going for?
Because it seems to me that, once they've nuked all the parliamentary procedural rules in favor of ad hoc majoritary rule, they can literally do anything they want.
Didn't the GOP already have a dress rehearsal for ad hoc majoritarianism, during the Terri Schiavo imbroglio, when they ruled that 3 Senators comprised a "quorum"? IIRC, they passed the Save!Terri bill with no debate, with no Democrats around; just with those 3 Senators.
So now, if the Pranksters make it official, is it possible that they can refuse to recognize Democratic Senators at all - not let them speak, not record their votes; not even tell them a vote's about to happen?
Would they be able to pass legislation without notice or debate? - after a quick vote to exclude whatever they're passing from SCOTUS jurisdiction, of course, to make sure whatever they pass becomes the law.
Can they do that? Really?
Posted by: CaseyL | May 13, 2005 at 06:55 PM
Can they do that? Really?
i hope so. the pay-back will be a bitch.
Posted by: cleek | May 13, 2005 at 07:01 PM
the Constitution makes explicit that expulsion requires two-thirds. Anything tantamount to expulsion (e.g. not counting votes) would presumably be ruled out by the Const., even after the Republicans declare that they are free to make up everything else.
Of course, "tantamount" might be a matter of interpretation.....
Posted by: Tad Brennan | May 13, 2005 at 07:04 PM
This seems to be an increasingly common debate: if there's no one to punish you for or stop you from breaking a law or a rule, have you broken the law/rule at all?
I think the answer is--resoundingly, obviously--yes.
The administration, from the nuclear option to the torture memos, either thinks that the answer is no, or just plain doesn't care.
Might makes right, basically. Yech.
Posted by: Katherine | May 13, 2005 at 07:07 PM
if there's no one to punish you for or stop you from breaking a law or a rule, have you broken the law/rule at all?
That seems similar to conservatives asking: "if the Court of Last Resort declares something unconstitutional, is it necessarily unconstitutional?" And then their answer follows yours.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | May 13, 2005 at 07:19 PM
SomeCallMeTim, so does that mean that a man with a gun is the same as a ruling from, say, the Supreme Court?
Of course, P. J. O'Rourke might answer, "yes," if he has a badge as well. (This is a slight exaggeration, but he has said, and it's true in a sense, "government is simply the authorized use of force.")
Posted by: ral | May 13, 2005 at 07:29 PM
"Might makes right, basically. Yech."
Faced with such an enemy that does not recognize law, ethics, rules, I guess one has three choices:
1)Play inside the rules and lose
2)Play outside the rules yourself
3)Eliminate the enemy
Posted by: bob mcmanus | May 13, 2005 at 07:35 PM
No, it's perfectly possible to say: this Supreme Court decision is wrong--and therefore at some level illegal-- but it would also be illegal for me to disobey the Court's injunction. Two wrongs don't make a right.
There's a case specifically about this, on the contempt power. Walker v. City of Birmingham, I think.
This is also what every standing case says: this may be illegal or unconstitutional, but it would violate Article III's case or controversy requirement for us to hear this case.
And the exclusionary rule: the Court isn't saying, you didn't break the law. It doesn't depend on the probability or even the possibility that the illegally obtained evidence--the confession, the fruits of the illegal search, whatever--was actually false. The court isn't saying, you haven't broken the law; it's saying, whether you broke the law or not, it is illegal to use this evidence at your trial.
Posted by: Katherine | May 13, 2005 at 07:44 PM
Mr. McManus--
I'll assume you have in mind voting people out of office, and not any other kind of "elimination". There's enough of that kind of talk in the blogosphere without the relatively sane people like yourself getting all Tutsi/Hutu on us.
And I say: play inside the rules. If you abuse power, the American people are going to vote you out. We can make it happen to the Republican leadership, in 2006, and again in 2008.
Posted by: Tad Brennan | May 13, 2005 at 07:45 PM
If a rule falls in the forest and the majority don't hear it fall, does it make a sound?
Posted by: carsick | May 13, 2005 at 07:45 PM
The reason this is so crucial is that Article III courts do not have jurisdiction to hear claims based on abuses of the foreign affairs powers, or only have jurisdiction over criminal cases in situations where the executive just isn't going to prosecute itself. And there are good reasons for having limited court jurisdiction.
Remember, the OLC has expressed and never repudiated the view that it may be unconstitutional interference with the Commander in Chief power for the courts or Congress to order the President not to torture people. Therefore, they think he is morally justified in evading those orders, though perhaps not in directly defying them--there's certainly no requirement of good faith compliance. John Yoo says things like, if the President is torturing people or otherwise violating the "the Constitutional remedy is impeachment."
Combine this with the "it's not illegal until you make us stop attitude" and: they convince themselves that it is legal and constitutional for the President can order the army to do literally anything he wants it to do for as long as he's in office.
Our system, with its strong executive, courts of limited jurisdiction, and allowance for government secrecy, cannot function in wartime without an executive who believes in an obligation to comply with the laws in good faith, even if he is not going to be penalized for failing to do so.
Which is not to say that we get to revolt, bob, nor is it to say that there aren't legal remedies that will do the trick. One party's breach does not automatically void a contract.
Posted by: Katherine | May 13, 2005 at 08:04 PM
there's a missing "always" in the first paragraph.
Posted by: Katherien | May 13, 2005 at 08:06 PM
I believe it was Alexander Solzenitzen who said as he was leaving the US "America is kindling for fascism." Or something along those lines.
Posted by: carsick | May 13, 2005 at 08:18 PM
i hate John Yoo with the white hot passion of a thousand suns.
Posted by: praktike | May 13, 2005 at 08:22 PM
"I'll assume you have in mind voting people out of office"
I am no longer certain this remains a possibility. Those of you that are will certainly have a different perspective.
"And I say: play inside the rules."
A long tradition of civil disobedience in this country, of various forms, from both the left and right, with levels of general acceptance ranging from sit-ins and peaceful marches (answered brutally) to tax avoidance & evasion(winked at). Whatever circumstances determine when CD becomes appropriate and what form it can reasonably take (what laws can be ethically broken) I am disappointed to see so little at our present time.
3)Elimination
I am attracted to secession, even the Deep South is going to have all the military bases, ammo dumps, armories, and naval ports. This is of course, absolute coincidence to any but the most paranoid.
And after my fourth systemically criminal Republican administration in a row, I would like the party disbanded.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | May 13, 2005 at 08:29 PM
"And after my fourth systemically criminal Republican administration in a row"
My apologies to Gerald Ford, forgotten far too often by too many.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | May 13, 2005 at 08:31 PM
Bob--Oh, civil disobedience. That's okileydokiley, as long as people are smart about it, though unfortunately those motivated enough to do it are often upset enough that they're not so strategic about it.
"i hate John Yoo with the white hot passion of a thousand suns."
and yet, still less than I do...it's nice in a way, knowing who your arch-nemesis is.
Posted by: Katherine | May 13, 2005 at 09:01 PM
(not tax evasion or whatnot. Not property damage. Plenty of forms of it--in fact most forms--are wrong and not justified. I tend to think that in most cases it's only justified & effective if the actual law you break is wrong, and we should get our act together in a dozen other ways first.
But, I obviously don't consider the freedom rides & lunch counter sit ins unjustified.)
Posted by: Katherine | May 13, 2005 at 09:07 PM
To get even more specific an closer to topic about "breaking the rules" in order to make the playing field a little more level:
There are unwritten rules of tradition, comity, and fair play that should now be open.
1) I am not certain about the Senate quorum rules. Democrats might respond to a nuclear attack with a two year sickout. If 44 Democrats simply went home, could the Senate do business? If so, I would vastly prefer those judges and Bolton be confirmed on 54-0 votes rather than legitimacy ascribing 54-46 votes. If the Senate cannot do business without Democrats, they should shut it down. They simply will not risk anything. What is Reid risking in his tactics and strategy?
2)Boxer put a typical "hold" on Bolton, asking for some documentation from the Executive...I think. This is still playing by courtesy rules Republicans have abandoned. If Boxer needed a public reason to put the hold, I suggest:
"I don't like his mustache."
Posted by: bob mcmanus | May 13, 2005 at 09:25 PM
I am attracted to secession, even the Deep South is going to have all the military bases, ammo dumps, armories, and naval ports. This is of course, absolute coincidence to any but the most paranoid.
Bob, if you look about 2500 miles southwest of San Francisco, you'll find a pleasantly tolerant little state that's armed to the teeth. And we even have an active--if very much fringe--secessionist movement (the outer reaches of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement). The cost of living is out of hand, but the climate's pretty good. For that matter, Washington and California could probably do a pretty good job of defending themselves, too.
Posted by: DaveL | May 13, 2005 at 09:27 PM
those attracted to the idea of secession need only move to Pacifica, formerly known as the states of California, Oregon and Washington (hawaii is welcome; alaska would probably refuse the invite). the rump US will no longer have a west coast port. Pacifica would have incredible economic power, with industries ranging from agriculture (rice to wine to fruits to vegetables to . . .) to mining to timber to heavy industry to light industry to education to finance to software to (well, you get the picture.)
new england could go its own way too. then the rest of the country could find out just how much they rely on massive inflows of taxes from blue states.
Posted by: Francis / Brother Rail Gun of Reasoned Discourse | May 13, 2005 at 09:42 PM
I don't want to invite Alaska to join us Upper Lefters. Culturally they are too akin to Texas. Let's volunteer to become part of British Colombia.
Posted by: lily | May 13, 2005 at 09:56 PM
Are we talking about the state of Washington? Isn't that the state where they rig their election for governor.
Given what's going on with all the governmental misconduct in Canada... maybe it would be appropriate to make Washington state part of British Columbia.
Posted by: wwc | May 13, 2005 at 10:17 PM
Are we talking about the state of Washington? Isn't that the state where they rig their election for governor.
Well, the GOP tried, but fortunately the system worked in the end, and the problems discovered by both parties in the process are being addressed and corrected.
Thanks for playing the disingenuous calumny game, though.
Posted by: Catsy | May 13, 2005 at 10:39 PM
i almost got the first post here, with something like "my stomach turns, when I read the lies Frist spits, and the media reads back". i thought it was over the top.
but, now that i see you all are talking secession and CD , i don't feel so alone in my outrage :)
Posted by: cleek | May 13, 2005 at 10:42 PM
Well, if it's a thousand separate suns, I'd think this comparison would depend a great deal on spectral type; a thousand K-type stars would be rather reddish. Lump them all together and things could get rather dark.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | May 13, 2005 at 11:03 PM
The constitution defines a quorum in either house: a majority of members.
Posted by: CharleyCarp | May 13, 2005 at 11:48 PM
Senate Rule V.2: "The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules."
I suppose this can be declared unconstitutional as well. Although the basis for doing so is not immediately apparent to me. Maybe its an emanation from a penumbra . . .
Posted by: CharleyCarp | May 13, 2005 at 11:53 PM
"Let's Get Ready to RUMBLE!"
I'm quite sure I forgot to mention that this seems awfully close to some sort of Elvis movie title. (Alas, not James Dean.) (Bob, I think there's a not abysmal case for largely forgetting Gerald Ford, but I acknowledge there's a good case in his defense, as well.)
Bob, I have great respect for you, but with a due bow to that, for whatever it's worth, and you are free to ignore it, my feedback is that you're going somewhat more out there (in general, in recent months) than -- and this is all I can say, and it's subjective -- my own view suggests is warranted. It might be as bad as you suggest, but I'm not yet convinced. (Of course, I might be wrong, in which case thanks for your warnings.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 13, 2005 at 11:54 PM
Since we're talking insanity, I hope you realize that you are thinking of "Pacifica's" economic capacity in the pre-secession state. Post-civil war II "Pacifica" would be a razed wasteland similar to post-Sherman Atlanta. Not likely to inspire much investment from hyperpower China.
It's easy to underestimate how quickly all of us city-dwellers would die if it weren't for those wonderfully fragile freeways and railroads. And it's easy to underestimate how quickly you rural denizens would revert to medieval subsistence without modern industrial cities.
Please tell me you are all joking and I'm too drunk to get it.
Please.
Posted by: ladan | May 14, 2005 at 12:04 AM
"my feedback is that you're going somewhat more out there"
One of my earliest intellectual memories is of reading a book on astronomy and going into dark despair at the heat-death of the universe. I was 10. I have often tended toward premature panic.
I also tend toward paranoia, which does not mean connections or implications I perceive are not real. Why do they want to close the Portsmouth naval base after 200 years? Have they given up on Maine, the North, all political expansion beyond their Deep South base? They are closing bases in NM and Arizona, seemingly winnable states. Are they pulling into a tight defensive formation in anticipation of trouble?
I have often spent much of my time like this. Paranoia can be fun, if coupled with irresponsibility.
(More seriously Gary, I have gone over since last summer. I saw it coming, believe the election was a massive instance of vote fraud on a scale of millions(25+ electors), believe a lot of people agree with me, can't prove it or are scared of dealing with it. The rage is hard to contain.)
Posted by: bob mcmanus | May 14, 2005 at 12:24 AM
I'm quite sure I forgot to mention that this seems awfully close to some sort of Elvis movie title.
Gary, for me, this brings to mind West Side Story. [I guess this is what happens when one is an ex-New Yorker.]
Bob, it's hard to write this without lapsing into quoting Yoda, and I have felt bile rising quite a bit lately, too, but I decided I have to have fun instead. The anger is just too destructive (self-destructive, too!).
[Boy, am I chatty today!]
By the way, even paranoids have enemies.
Posted by: ral | May 14, 2005 at 12:53 AM
"Well, if it's a thousand separate suns, I'd think this comparison would depend a great deal on spectral type; a thousand K-type stars would be rather reddish. Lump them all together and things could get rather dark."
lol.
Posted by: praktike | May 14, 2005 at 10:08 AM
i hate John Yoo with the white hot passion of a thousand suns.
John Yoo was (is?) a great prof. Very approachable, willing to talk to anybody, personally helped one student that I know if get a Supreme Court clerkship, would take students out to lunch all the time and helped people write papers that came to conclusions that I knew he disagreed with (in addition to being very smart). All-in-all what everyone would like in a law professor.
I think what happened to him in the toture memos was that he put his head down and became so enamored in his own theories that he never stepped back and said to himself, where is all this leading? That might be fine for a professor, but unfortunately he happened to be in a position where writing something like that had terrible results. If it had been in a law review article it would have been interesting, and mostly harmless (like Earth).
Anyway, that might be more convincing if he wasn't out there still defending his position in op-eds and what not. I think he would have been better served by going back to Berkeley and disappearing for few years.
Posted by: Ugh | May 14, 2005 at 01:05 PM
I'm paranoid that Bob McManus isn't paranoid enough. Think of all the fun I'm having.
Posted by: John Thullen | May 14, 2005 at 03:59 PM
Well, if it's a thousand separate suns, I'd think this comparison would depend a great deal on spectral type; a thousand K-type stars would be rather reddish. Lump them all together and things could get rather dark.
More probably, piling all of that mass together would generate a single superstar that would eventually go hypernova and collapse into a gigantic black hole.
Just like the economy!
Posted by: rcs | May 16, 2005 at 12:01 PM
After even cursory examination, one of these things is rather like the other.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | May 16, 2005 at 12:10 PM
"John Yoo was (is?) a great prof."
Wow. I thought you were talking about the director, and didn't understand why he would be hated.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | May 17, 2005 at 06:13 PM
Actually, I think the stellar formation you have in mind is likely to be very bright short-term, then long-term dark locally but bright globally as stuff falls into it and gets shredded and screams photons.
Posted by: rilkefan | May 17, 2005 at 06:19 PM
In the long term, we're all dead.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | May 18, 2005 at 01:42 AM