The don't need 60%?

Post #289,666 by Silverlock 7/23/07 10:07:17 AM Reply	The don't need 60%? I call [link\|http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/obstruct-this-by-digby-just-in-case.html\|bullshit] ----------------------------------------- Atheism is a religion in the same sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Post #289,717 by bepatient 7/24/07 7:18:03 AM Reply	They don't [link\|http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Contempt_of_Congress\|http://www.law.corne...tempt_of_Congress] And how do you establish jurisdiction? In the Courts. Your link was on procedural voting. There is no need for that. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #289,720 by Silverlock 7/24/07 8:53:28 AM Reply	Remember the point Bill Impeachment. Votes. Filibuster. ----------------------------------------- Atheism is a religion in the same sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Post #289,763 by bepatient 7/25/07 9:32:54 AM Reply	Re: Remember the point Bill Not an impeachment vote. Its a filing of criminal charges instead of being nice about it and citing Harriet Meirs with criminal contempt. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #289,792 by Simon_Jester 7/25/07 10:08:11 PM Reply	??? I thought Congress was [link\|http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1647157,00.html\|citing Miers] with contempt was a criminal charge. Now it goes to Congress for the full vote. Once voted there (probably in September), if it passes, it goes to the executive branch who are supposed to then execute it. The kewl part is, this will set precidence for the next President. If Bush doesn't move on it, it'll give carte-blanc to Hillary not to move on anything should a Republican majority get voted into Congress.
Post #289,807 by Ashton 7/26/07 5:50:15 AM Reply	Jury-nullification of the Constitution, then? Except it's not a jury. Aren't there several labels for an officially dysfunctional successor to a 'government'? This is beginning to smell like impending Dynastic succession, with each election-skit arrogating more autocratic power to the better-armed ... How then shall the various sub-species of cops decide to handle any arrest request? (or to decide Whose request to obey, especially if there are bigger armor-piercing bullets in Cheney's bunker and that famous walk-in safe.) While our chosen form of disintegration may supply some amusement to the world, it would have to be pretty rollicking, I'd think - to come close to atoning for the heaped dead burned bodies to date. (Will the non-Revolution be televised?) Love. It.
Post #289,826 by bepatient 7/26/07 10:59:31 AM Reply	She was asked to come. The contempt is thus one of a civil order. If the Democrats want this to be a showdown they need to level CRIMINAL charges against the players and have a grand jury placed. The way they are doing it now won't ever be resolved. And I've a feeling they don't really want it resolved...given the likelihood that they will control the exec branch in 18 months. My read is most here think that the abuse is somehow limited to this administration...this slippery slope has been in place for more than 30 years... But Hillary will make it better, won't she. [image\|/forums/images/warning.png\|0\|This is sarcasm...] Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #289,871 by Simon_Jester 7/27/07 12:09:50 AM 7/27/07 12:12:18 AM Reply	While I don't disagree on whether or not Democrats really want this done or not (and I note that every Republican voted AGAINST the charge)... I thought regardless of whether crimainal or civil charges are filed, that the charges had to come from the House as a whole rather than just a sub-committee. But I could be wrong. [on edit] Isn't asked to come incorrect? Wasn't she subpoenaed? (You mean you don't have to show if you're subpoenaed?) Edited by Simon_Jester July 27, 2007, 12:12:18 AM EDT Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!