Boomerdog

One of the rare time we agree. The travesty of all of this is The Speaker of the House of Representatives is third in Presidential Succession.

The statue of limitations as DanG posts has of course expired.

Hastert got off light. He should have got 15 years minimum. Crime coupled to the criminal and ethical betrayal of the public trust by ANY political leader merits (IMHO) a more severe sentence.

I've been in five military parachute rigging facilities and in every one of them is "The Rigger's Pledge," and here it is once again. The Rigger’s Pledge I will keep constantly in mind that until men grow wings their parachutes must be dependable. I will pack every parachute as though I am to jump with it myself, and will stand ready to jump with any parachute which I have certified as properly packed. I will remember always that the other man’s life is as dear to him as mine is to me. I will never resort to guesswork, as I know that chance is a fool’s gold and that I, a rigger, cannot depend on it. I will never pass over any defect, nor neglect any repair, no matter how small, as I know that omissions and mistakes in the rigging of a parachute may cost a life. I will keep all parachute equipment entrusted to my care in the best possible condition, remembering always that little things left undone cause major troubles. I will never sign my name to a parachute inspection or packing certificate unless I have personally performed or directly supervised every step, and am entirely satisfied with all the work. I will never let the idea that a piece of work is “good enough” make me a potential murderer through a careless mistake or oversight, for I know there can be no compromise with perfection. I will keep always a wholehearted respect for my vocation, regarding it as a high profession rather than a day-to-day task, and will keep in mind constantly my grave responsibility. I will be sure-always. There's some 'splainin' to do.

My sincere and humble apologies for the misspelling. A combination of fast fat fingers and spell check. Corrections have been made.

With sincere apologies to Moriarty; "There ya go again quade, throwing out all them negative waves."

Well no one asked me. If I had the coin, I'd build me a house with solar panels on the roof; a windmill, passive solar in the design of the house, rain collection with ion exchange resin, RO filters and damn near anything else to get the hell off the grid. I don't like utility bills.

Well...when the DZ's in France find themselves on the brink of going out of business because skydivers stay, they'll voila..."rethink it."

They both deserve each other. Throw and lock them both in an unpadded, unfurnished room, serve them gruel under the door and throw away the key.

Well...a dear cousin of mine died alone in bed. COD was a bloodclot. I've had cancer. Surviving cancer WILL change your perspective on things. In all truth, given the choice between denting the Earth or dying from cancer; I'll take the former any day of the week and twice on Sunday...but I'd rather NOT dent the Earth all things considered. If your wife is a "sharp cookie," logical, rational etc etc, good for her. Sounds like you married a good woman and I hope she got a good deal in reciprocity. However...ask her this question: "Is there any absolute guarantee that you, her, me, the rest of us will be alive in the next 10 minutes? I'd be interested to know what her answer is.

Welcomee back!

What crime does she stand convicted of that merits a Presidential Pardon? A pardon for the future if she is eventually indicted and subsequently convicted? I thought one had to have been convicted of some crime before petitioning for a Presidential Pardon. Then again, stranger things have happened. Silly me.

It would be more "freaking hilarious" as you say if you decided to take this one on yourself i.e. YOU were that someone. C'mon...it could be fun!

You forgot to blame Bush! He's behind all of it!

It comes down to whether tech and software developers are to become hacking tools/capabilities for governments. To be forced by court order is anathema.

Wow! What an oratory! Let's distill it down to the LCD. It's about power. I don't want the Supreme Court Swinging Left. You do. You remind of of my "lib" brother. You both could be walking in a park and if a statue looked at the both of you the wrong way, you'd argue for hours with it. But I still love him.

Don't push that one too hard.

As if government is so so so so vital in you lives? Who are you guys? Skydivers or pudknockers?

You DAMN right I support McConnell's decision Passports work much quicker than that. Driver's license is done on line. Haven't applied for a business license yet. But I am thinking about it having a small business once I do officially retire from the rat race. I'll let you know how it goes. The rest of your screed is your opinion and like assholes, everybody's got one.

I tried in my post #58. He doesn't get it rush. Doubt he ever will.

My answer to you AND billivon is this. Better check pop culture, academia, and the press for they are either writing or supporting that narrative.

Nowhere did I stipulate anything you suggest. Obama can nominate anyone he likes and send it to the Senate. In theory, he could make a nomination the last day, perhaps the last hour he's in office. But you know and I know, the Senate is under no Constitutional obligation to approve this nomination much less hold hearings or hold a vote in committee or bring it to the full Senate Floor for a vote. McConnell is calling the shots from the Senate side. I'm sure you don't like it but that's how the Constitutional pickle squirts from time to time. Let me ask you this question I asked another here. If this situation were in complete reverse, you think a Democratic Senate Majority would react differently to a conservative Republican President sending up a SCOTUS nominee with less than a year to the end of term? Don't bullshit me now.

This time, this subject, but cut you no slack on another topic.

Once again, you did not review the resulting polling data from the New Hampshire Primary...it's on the internet if you care to look.

With the Internet and even as far off as New Zealand, you're capable of peeling back the onion a little more in spite of your superficial response. I'm disappointed. The Kennedy Nomination was a continuance of two previously failed nominations during the Reagan Administration. President Reagan nominated Robert Bork on July 1, 1987; approximately 19 months before he left Office on 20 Jan 89. Of course Bork went down in flames after the full Senate vote not to confirm on October 23, 1987. Shortly after, Reagan nominated Douglas Ginsburg who at the time was a justice on the Washington D.C. Federal Court of Appeals. But Ginsburg was discovered to have smoked a little too much weed in his past and this did not sit well with some Senators and eventually the nomination was withdrawn. Justice Kennedy was nominated by Reagan on Nov 30, 1987 with Senate confirmation on February 3,1988 (less than a year to go for Reagan I admit). Reagan's term as President ended on January 30, 1989 so Kennedy's nomination took place one year and 52 days before leaving office and not in his last year as you contend. Now obviously it's a matter of opinion whether one does or does not accept the fact that the Kennedy nomination was a continuation of a process that initially began on July 1, 1987. But I understand. Many years ago, one of your fellow countrymen (actually it was a very lovely Kiwi lady) asked me to explain to her the US Constitution and I did my best, kept it very simple out of respect to her but to no avail. It all confused the hell out of her. And I must admit, I have no clue about the political processes of New Zealand. I could comment on them but I'd probably be wrong and I'm sure you'd be first in line to point out my errors. Therefore I shall refrain and I hope to adhere to that level of self imposed restraint in perpetuity. Now would you like to try Double Jeopardy, US Constitution for $200?