Posts by Cboldt

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • WHERE HAVE YOU GONE, MR. NOVAK??

    11/03/2005 5:23:39 PM PST · 27 of 42
    Cboldt to Dolphy
    In reading Novak's brief comments on his role, I remember having the impression that he may have been told Wilson's wife, who worked at the CIA, was involved in his selection. He found out Wilson's wife's name by looking it up in a directory.

    Here are some names to file away in the data banks ...

    Joseph Wilson a political centrist, was a career United States diplomat from 1976 to 1998. During Democratic and Republican administrations, he served in various diplomatic posts throughout Africa and eventually as ambassador to Gabon. He was the acting ambassador to Baghdad when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, and was the last American official to meet with Saddam before the Gulf War. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush called Wilson a "True American Hero."

    At the request of the CIA in February 2002, Wilson investigated reports of Iraq's attempt to buy uranium from Niger. After President George W. Bush claimed in his 2003 State of the Union address that, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," Wilson wrote a New York Times op-ed, "What I Didn't Find in Africa," which outlined his belief that Bush had misled the public.

    In October 2003, Wilson received the Ron Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling from the Fertel Foundation and the Nation Institute. Also in 2003, columnist Robert Novak disclosed the undercover identity of Wilson's wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame. In The Politics of Truth: A Diplomat's Memoir, Wilson claims that senior administration officials leaked his wife's identity to reporters and manipulated information to support going to war in Iraq. The U.S. Justice Department is currently investigating the leaking of Valerie Plame's undercover identity.

    http://www.soprisfoundation.org/indexschedule04.htm

  • WHERE HAVE YOU GONE, MR. NOVAK??

    11/03/2005 5:13:30 PM PST · 26 of 42
    Cboldt to Dolphy
    In reading Novak's brief comments on his role, I remember having the impression that he may have been told Wilson's wife, who worked at the CIA, was involved in his selection. He found out Wilson's wife's name by looking it up in a directory.

    Who's Who - by Reed Elsevier. I've heard, but not checked for myself, that it lists one "V. Plame" as his wife, in all editions from 1999 to 2003.

    Check your local library for a copy. Most libraries have them dating back several years. Wilson is listed, suprisingly enough, under "Wilson."

  • Censorship of web a matter of time?

    11/03/2005 5:01:48 PM PST · 12 of 52
    Cboldt to inquest
    So now the H.R. has its own little filibuster-type foolishness? This is the first I've ever heard of this rule.

    Two-thirds Votes

    Under the Constitution or by House rule, a two-thirds vote is expressly required in the House on:

    • Amendment to the Constitution. U.S. Const. art. V; Manual Sec. 190.
    • Passage of a bill over a veto. U.S. Const. art. I Sec. 7; Manual Sec. 104.
    • Dispensing with Calendar Wednesday. Rule XV clause 7; Manual Sec. 900.
    • Dispensing with the call of the Private Calendar. Rule XV clause 5; Manual Sec. 895.
    • Same-day consideration of reports from the Committee on Rules. Rule XIII clause 6; Manual Sec. 857.
    • Suspension of the rules. Rule XV clause 1; Manual Sec. 885.
    • Expulsion of a Member. U.S. Const. art. I Sec. 5; Manual Sec. 62.
    • Removal of political disabilities. U.S. Const. Amendment XIV Sec. 3; Manual Sec. 230.

    A two-thirds vote means two-thirds of those voting, a quorum being present, and not two-thirds of the entire membership. Deschler-Brown Ch 30 Sec. 5. Such a vote requires an affirmative vote by two-thirds of those Members actually voting; Members who indicate only that they are ``present'' are not counted in determining the two-thirds figure. Deschler-Brown Ch 30 Sec. 5.2. This method of computing a two-thirds vote has been applied to votes on passage of a constitutional amendment (5 Hinds Sec. 7027; 8 Cannon Sec. 3503), to votes on the passage of a bill over the President's veto (7 Cannon Sec. 1111), and to votes on a motion to suspend the rules (Deschler-Brown Ch 30 Sec. 5.2).

    A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House
    Chapter 58 - Voting

    See also:
    House Rules and Manual: Browse the 108th Edition
  • Censorship of web a matter of time?

    11/03/2005 4:58:01 PM PST · 11 of 52
    Cboldt to Whitehawk
    Link appreciated. Not aware of this Bill.

    See also S.678 and Text of S.678.

    Compare with Text of H.R. 1605, still pending.

    Much ado about nothing

    ;-)

  • WHERE HAVE YOU GONE, MR. NOVAK??

    11/03/2005 4:53:57 PM PST · 21 of 42
    Cboldt to hoosiermama
    Didn't Kovak say he would tell us his source after the GJ reported...

    "After the case is concluded," whatever the dickens that means.

    But on the June 29 edition of CNN's Inside Politics, host Ed Henry grilled Novak on the extent of his contact with federal prosecutors, asking at one point, "Why is it that there are two reporters out there who may go to jail, Bob, but it doesn't appear that you are going to go to jail?" In response, Novak said he could not comment on the case and claimed he will "reveal all in a column and on the air" once the case has concluded. "Ed, you don't know anything about the case," Novak stated. "And those people who say that don't know anything about the case. And unfortunately, as somebody who likes to write, I'd like to say a lot about the case, but because of my attorney's advice I can't."

    In a subsequent interview with The New York Times, Novak again declined to provide additional information regarding his contact with investigators. He asserted that he is not to blame for the fact Miller and Cooper face jail time. Novak reiterated that he will "write a column when the case is closed" and "tell everything I know."

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200506300011

  • Censorship of web a matter of time?

    11/03/2005 4:48:25 PM PST · 6 of 52
    Cboldt to Whitehawk; All
  • WHERE HAVE YOU GONE, MR. NOVAK??

    11/03/2005 4:41:50 PM PST · 19 of 42
    Cboldt to hoosiermama
    Didn't Kovak say he would tell us his source after the GJ reported.

    Ha ha - joke is on you!!

    QUESTION: I think you, kind of, answered this but I assume that you have no plans and don't even think you'd be allowed to issue a final report of any sort.

    FITZGERALD: You're correct. But let me explain that.

    I think what people may be confused about is that reports used to be issued by independent counsels. And one of the complaints about the independent counsel statute was that an ordinary citizen, when investigated, they're charged with a crime or they're not; they're not charged with a crime, people don't talk about it.

    Because of the interest in making sure that -- well, there's an interest in independent counsels to making sure those investigations were done thoroughly but then people ended up issuing reports for people not charged. And one of the criticisms leveled was that you should not issue reports about people who are not charged with a crime.

    That statute lapsed. I'm not an independent counsel, and I do not have the authority to write a report, and, frankly, I don't think I should have that authority. I think we should conduct this like any other criminal investigation: charge someone or be quiet.

  • The Mark Levin Show Thread November 3, 2005

    11/03/2005 4:28:39 PM PST · 230 of 319
    Cboldt to AliVeritas
    Meyer v. Nebraska. 262 US 390 (1923)
    Pierce v. Society of Sisters. 268 US 510 (1925)
    Fields v. Palmdale School Dist., -- F.3d- (9th Cir. 2005) <- The stinker

    See also http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1861 <- Survey questions listed

    Fields v. Palmdale Sch. Dist., 271 F. Supp. 2d 1217 (C.D. Cal. 2003) <- Case below
    Summary of 271 F. Supp. 2d 1217 follows ...

    Parents sued school district, alleging violations of their federal and state constitutional rights to privacy, deprivation of their civil rights, and negligence. After obtaining written parental consent, the school mental health counselor distributed a sexually explicit survey to children. However, the parents were not aware of the subject matter, and claimed that, had they known the content of the survey, they would not have consented. held: For school district. Although parents have a constitutionally protected interest in education and rearing of their children, the court dismissed this case because the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect this specific circumstance.

    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3994/is_200404/ai_n9352196

  • The Mark Levin Show Thread November 3, 2005

    11/03/2005 4:08:01 PM PST · 187 of 319
    Cboldt to Bahbah
    From a quick reading, it looks like a variety of avenues and outcomes are possible.

    The conclusion paragraph has an answer to your question about cases not heard by in incoming Justice, with decisions handed down after O'Connor's retirement.

    CRS publications are well researched and supported with citations. I can't recall finding a substantive error in one of their publications.

  • The Mark Levin Show Thread November 3, 2005

    11/03/2005 3:58:05 PM PST · 168 of 319
    Cboldt to Bahbah
    See: http://www.opencrs.com/getfile.php?rid=43305 <- PDF

    The Retirement of Justice O'Connor
    Quorum Requirements, Rehearings and Vote Counts in the Supreme Court
    CRS-RS22300 | October 18, 2005

  • Two GOP Senators: No Filibuster on Alito

    11/03/2005 3:45:17 PM PST · 76 of 89
    Cboldt to All
    Make it at least three ...

    Republican Sens. Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Olympia Snowe of Maine have said they don't see Alito triggering the "extraordinary circumstances" standard the group had set that could initiate a filibuster.

    CNN.com - Alito hearings to begin in January - Nov 3, 2005

  • The Mark Levin Show Thread November 3, 2005

    11/03/2005 3:33:21 PM PST · 116 of 319
    Cboldt to All
    Up until the 1980s, the approval process of Justices was frequently rather quick. From Truman through Nixon, Justices were typically approved in a month. From Reagan through Clinton, the duration of the approval process extended to much longer. Some speculate this is because of the increasing political role Justices play.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

  • The Mark Levin Show Thread November 3, 2005

    11/03/2005 3:29:38 PM PST · 107 of 319
    Cboldt to Bahbah
    What happens with regard to a Justice who was not on the Court for oral argument. Can they vote?

    I haven't researched that question.

  • The Mark Levin Show Thread November 3, 2005

    11/03/2005 3:25:16 PM PST · 89 of 319
    Cboldt to tiredoflaundry
    The partial-birth and parental notification hearings coming up... so O'Connor will still be on the bench.

    Bingo! Exactly why Specter is waiting, the sleezeball.

    Probably not [why he is waiting].

    O'Connor must be on the bench when the opinion is handed down, if her opinion is to be included.

  • The Mark Levin Show Thread November 3, 2005

    11/03/2005 3:20:22 PM PST · 72 of 319
    Cboldt to All
    The White House, as you know, is interested in having the matter concluded by the end of the year. I do not know that that is realistic. I do not know that that is unrealistic.

    What I do know is that we're going to do it right, and we're not necessarily going to do it fast.

    If it can be done within the time frame by the end of the year and done properly with an opportunity to review Judge Alito's record and have the kind of hearings that are necessary for this kind of a very, very key position -- you hear it said often, but frankly not too often, that short of a declaration of war, the most important function of the United States Senate is the confirmation of U.S. Supreme court justice for lifetime terms.

    They make the decision on the cutting edges of all of the big questions in our society.

    As things have evolved, the Congress punts to the court, the executive branch punts to the court. And they have lifetime tenure and independence, and they have come somehow in our society to take on those cutting edge questions. So it is very, very important.

    Transcript: Sen. Specter Discusses Alito Nomination | Oct 31, 2005


    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Confirmation hearings are to begin in January for Samuel Alito, President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court seat now held by Sandra Day O'Connor, leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Thursday.

    When announcing Alito's nomination on Monday, President Bush called for a vote by the end of the year. The judiciary committee's chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, and ranking member, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, announced Thursday that the hearings would begin on January 9. ...

    McCain said he is "very favorably disposed" toward Alito, but "it's my obligation to go along with the Gang of 14 and have periodic meetings and discussions."

    Republican Sens. Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Olympia Snowe of Maine have said they don't see Alito triggering the "extraordinary circumstances" standard the group had set that could initiate a filibuster.

    CNN.com - Alito hearings to begin in January - Nov 3, 2005

  • DEMOCRAT Senator Arlen Specter Needs A Wakeup Call

    11/03/2005 3:13:39 PM PST · 3 of 21
    Cboldt to All
    The White House, as you know, is interested in having the matter concluded by the end of the year. I do not know that that is realistic. I do not know that that is unrealistic.

    What I do know is that we're going to do it right, and we're not necessarily going to do it fast.

    If it can be done within the time frame by the end of the year and done properly with an opportunity to review Judge Alito's record and have the kind of hearings that are necessary for this kind of a very, very key position -- you hear it said often, but frankly not too often, that short of a declaration of war, the most important function of the United States Senate is the confirmation of U.S. Supreme court justice for lifetime terms.

    They make the decision on the cutting edges of all of the big questions in our society.

    As things have evolved, the Congress punts to the court, the executive branch punts to the court. And they have lifetime tenure and independence, and they have come somehow in our society to take on those cutting edge questions. So it is very, very important.

    Transcript: Sen. Specter Discusses Alito Nomination

  • ALITO HEARINGS TO START JANUARY 9

    11/03/2005 3:07:30 PM PST · 67 of 172
    Cboldt to All
    Specter: Hearings Start Jan. 9

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Republican-controlled Senate will begin hearings Jan. 9 on Judge Samuel Alito's appointment to the Supreme Court, spurning President Bush's call for a final confirmation vote by year's end.

    "It's simply wasn't possible to accommodate the schedule that the White House wanted," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He outlined a schedule that envisions five days of hearings, followed by a vote in committee on Jan. 17 and the full Senate on Jan. 20.

    http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/campaignforthecourt/2005/11/specter_hearing.html

  • ALITO HEARINGS TO START JANUARY 9

    11/03/2005 3:00:59 PM PST · 62 of 172
    Cboldt to All
    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Confirmation hearings are to begin in January for Samuel Alito, President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court seat now held by Sandra Day O'Connor, leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Thursday.

    When announcing Alito's nomination on Monday, President Bush called for a vote by the end of the year. The judiciary committee's chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, and ranking member, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, announced Thursday that the hearings would begin on January 9. ...

    Republican Sens. Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Olympia Snowe of Maine have said they don't see Alito triggering the "extraordinary circumstances" standard the group had set that could initiate a filibuster.

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/03/alito/index.html

  • ALITO HEARINGS TO START JANUARY 9

    11/03/2005 2:45:44 PM PST · 40 of 172
    Cboldt
    ALITO HEARINGS [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
    begin January 9 at noon, according to Specter. Floor vote on 20th, the chairman hopes.
    Posted at 05:14 PM
    ARGH [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
    According to CNN, Alito hearings will not begin until January.
    Posted at 05:03 PM

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/

  • ALITO HEARINGS TO START JANUARY 9

    11/03/2005 2:41:41 PM PST · 35 of 172
    Cboldt to Semper Paratus
    And how many conservative judicial appointments got thrown under the bus by the Senate thanks to the so-called "Gang of 14"?

    At this moment, the count stands at six nominations for Ciruit Courts of Appeal, "under the bus."

    Myers and Boyle - out of Committee. Myers since March.

    Haynes, Kavanaugh, Saad and Neilson have been in Judiciary Committe since February - but ALL of them were "carry over" nominations from the 108th Congress. Haynes is the nomination with the shortest amount of time in Committee - his nomination string only goes back to Sept. 29, 2003.