Comments on: Scooter Libby Drops Appeal, Ready To Testify Before Congress?

By: Moon

Moon — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:55:35 +0000

I thought the pardon rules required the recipient to accept full responsibility for his crime. Is this another rule the Regime will be changing?

By: PLovering

PLovering — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:32:17 +0000

I’m looking forward to New Year’s Eve this year, when all the banks, financial houses, and corpses must balance their books to the satisfaction of now legally sanctioned auditors.

Bada Bing!

By: MrWhy

MrWhy — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:24:46 +0000

“If the President does it, it’s legal. He’s the Decider.”

By: dakine01

dakine01 — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:42:38 +0000

Nope, did not know that but would not have changed any of my replies had I known it before hand.

By: Ann in AZ

Ann in AZ — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:11:37 +0000

Dakine, you do realize that you’re talking to a Professor of Philosophy whose book

developed a theory of image schema as basic building blocks in cognitive linguistics for conceptual metaphor, as well as for language and abstract reason generally.

according to his Wiki entry, don’t you?

By: BobbyG

BobbyG — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:05:50 +0000

The Constitution means what the Supremes say it “means.” And the case law record is replete with examples of contradictions and illogic.

By: RBG

RBG — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:05:19 +0000

Hey Norske,

Luvya, but just a heads up that even though Terry Southern may have used the phrase doesn’t mean others won’t misunderstand how you intend it to be used.

By: BobbyG

BobbyG — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:03:50 +0000

Who the hell knows unitl it is judicially tested. But I think an excellent argument could be made that the pardon, like a legal action is required to invovle and actuall case in controverys.

The precedent, though, implies otherwise. Specificity not required. But, again, the challenge could be re-visited, since Murphy v Ford did not rise to the level of final federal Case Law.

By: NorskeFlamethrower

NorskeFlamethrower — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:03:35 +0000

1,691 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..

Citizen BobbyG:

The grammar of the language in the constitution make all statements in the present or past tense…no future tense or conditional or subjunctive. In addition, the logical assumptions of law which carry and give meaning to the 18th century language of the Consitution exclude any prospective action…the enlightenment thinkers who put the Constitution together structured the mechanism of constitutional law to deal with actions in real time, the Constitution was to be self contained and self correcting through politics and was not designed to anticipate ANYthin’.

KEEP THE FAITH AND DON’T LET THE BASTARDS SET ANY FUCKIN’ PRECEDENTS!!

By: marymccurnin

marymccurnin — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:58:54 +0000

Not if you are in the funeral buz! It’s like that jive-ass tv commercial where the woman says. “this plan pays for final, and any other expenses”. WTF is that supposed to mean!

dead-final expenses
deader-other expenses