bmags

hahaha nice moddage

QUOTE (almagest @ May 3, 2009 -> 09:25 PM) Maybe? I don't remember hearing that, but I wouldn't be surprised. Ah, I remember, I used to have a music web site and I wrote about it. That's why I was surprised to see what you said. They dissolved for quite a while! I saw them at intonation in 2007. I miss intonation.

Hey, historical question: In team of rivals, Salmon Chase left to be a SC justice, but later they had him running for president again. Did he step down after a few years to run?

what the hell? Do you think that health care reform will come from the bench?

nvm

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 3, 2009 -> 07:46 PM) The way the confirmation process has evolved over the last 20 years thanks to 2 events, it probably will almost have to be a judge. The 2 events: 1. The nomination of Souter. A guy nominated by a Republican president, who turned out to be a vote in favor of keeping Roe v. Wade in tact. Because of that guy, Presidents are now going to be vastly more careful to make sure they understand exactly how their nominee is going to vote on an issue before it ever comes up, because the President can't afford a surprise pick that turns out to be towards the other side. This requires a long record of their decision making on legal issues...hence, they almost need to have a judicial record, unless you're nominating someone who's already served in Congress or ran for high level office. 2. Harriet Miers. Bush nominated a complete moron to the position who didn't even survive to the confirmation hearings because she was totally unqualified for anything other than utter subservience to the President. What this has done has made it difficult to nominate someone who doesn't have an extensive record of work in the actual field of law, because if it's a surprise pick, they're going to be compared to her, and no comparison to her can possibly be positive. You can probably add in the defeat of Bork as a 3rd reason if you want, although I think that those 2 are the key changes. Oh, I'm well aware, but I hardly think Harriet Miers is one of two reasons why not. It's much more to do with number one. But I'd still say a former governor and legislator or respected legal mind could be on SCOTUS and operate as, if not more, efficiently as a judge. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/us/polit...=rss&src=ig I think it's pretty clear from Obama's previous statements that he won't be seeking a Scalia-type in the liberal form. He had that interview where he was skeptical of the SCOTUS decisions being effective in social movements, specifically citing the civil rights era, and before that the Civil War.

I disagree it should be a judge. More people than judges are capable of understanding the constitutionality of our laws and the rights guaranteed by that document.

QUOTE (almagest @ May 3, 2009 -> 12:45 AM) Yeah, one of their band members died right around the time they finished recording their first album, in 2004. They released another in 2006, and have been silent since, so I'm not surprised. The show is at the Empty Bottle on Friday, May 15 (whoops, wrong about the next week part) at the Empty Bottle. Tickets only $8. I feel like I heard they were breaking up more than a year ago.

I blame my poor title. It should've been like DRUNK BOOZE BOOBS

2008 was a more relatable, everyman Griffey.

Anything dealing with private parts saw some ridiculously interesting opinions from Stewart. That's my main problem with Thomas and Alito, yeah, they are the most boneheaded, and I disagree with them on every decision, but at least Scalia has these fantastic dissenting opinions and opinions in general, Thomas and Alito are just boring. Thomas might be illiterate for all I know. SO here's a debate question, dudes and ladies: It's come up before, do you think this next supreme court justice should be a judge? And if not, since we are more familiar with non-judicial nominees, who would be your pick?

Ugh, Alito and Thomas. Haven't been a fan of SCOTUS since the 90s. I'm a Potter Stewart man, myself.

I feel safer.

Me thinks Swisher's sudden hit spree has now caused a re-assessment of his time in Chicago with rose-tinted glasses. He was awful.

haha, bless you, Tmar

That's a funny story, but keep in mind this guy is about as serious a candidate as the minnesota person running as a vampire.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 30, 2009 -> 09:39 PM) Who are you kidding. You just like artists with skinny jeans. The music is irrelevant. pretty stupid post.

QUOTE (The Critic @ Apr 30, 2009 -> 10:24 PM) I agree. Some of my favorite singers can't "sing", and generally speaking, my favorite guitarists keep it simple and aren't flashy. However, a bad drummer can RUIN a band. For me, that's the key to a rock band - the guy doesn't have to be Neil Peart, but he has to be solid. Ultimately, for me it's always about the songs - much more than it is about the individuals playing them. I'll get behind this 100%. Good point on drummer.

for me, talent in music has little to do with the technical skills.

Gross.

QUOTE (Cali @ Apr 28, 2009 -> 05:39 PM) The Fray's cover of "Heartless" is actually pretty good. I'm no Fray fan, but it's good to hear it sung by some one who can actually sing.... is there a rolleyes smiley?

Man, that'd be soo nice to get Edmonds.

yeah you know China can really f*** off after the ACTUAL problems we've had with their products.

I hated our consumer economics class because the teacher was clearly assigned to teach it and had no idea what she was talking about.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 29, 2009 -> 07:01 PM) Palin/Bachmann 2012. I support that ticket for the sake of The daily show/Colbert Report/SNL/Wait Wait don't tell me