Hope your panel goes well.

NN is precluding Friday Muppet Blogging? If so that’s OK by me.

Nice to ’see’ you on C-Span!

Yay Christy!

Looking good, Lady!

I looked at the link but I could not find what your panel was on?

here ya go

After Sotomayor: How Progressives Reshape the Debate Over Our Constitution and the Supreme Court

Just a few months into his first term President Obama has already made a mark on the Supreme Court. What does the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor mean for the Court and its upcoming rulings? Following the first successful judicial confirmation of the Obama Era, how can progressives restore their claim to the text and history of the Constitution? How can the Netroots community help make both judiciary and the Constitution an important issue in progressive politics? How will this summer influence how the Obama Administration invests in future judicial nominations?

Wait. Does this mean I’m going to miss Glenn Beck’s show?

Go get ‘em, Christy!

we all have to make hard choices in life.

OT. This is how the Republican party ends.
Not with a bang or a whimper,
but with Specter and Grassley arguing over who forgot to flush the toilet.

Way to go, Christy! Very nice TV presence.

Nice to bring up the 7 month hold on Hamilton. Nice job Christy!!!!

BTW, maybe someone can help me out.

I’ve read the U.S. Constitution several times, but I must’ve missed it.

Can anyone point out the article and paragraph that gives one U.S. Senator the right to block judicial appointees?? I’m sure I must’ve just missed it.

Thanks.

Don’t say “blowjob.”

Good panel discussion. Lookin’ and soundin’ good, Christy.

And now, *grumble grumble*, it’s back to the cesspool.

Namaste

Christy is doing us proud. Too bad there aren’t many people in the HUGE room that this is being held in.

good question by moderator—what can we do to lay the ground for issues to come? Constitution would not have anticipated things like gay marriage.

I keep seeing this reference.

Sorry, I’m new here, and if it’s been said a thousand times no need to say it again, but instead of telling the story behind the reference maybe someone could simply post a link for me to read about it????

here. ..
Marcy Wheeler Says “Blowjob” On MSNBC

Don Siegelman in the room listening intently to it all.

Marcy Wheeler (emptywheel) appeared on a day time MSNBC news show a few weeks ago with some right wing person who was making some faux comparison between the Clinton impeachment and how wonderful it was versus how many laws the Bush II admin broke. She stated that there was no comparison between a consensual blowjob and the ripping of the Constitution. The hosts of the show (David Shuster and Tamron Hall) felt compelled to apologize for Marcy’s use of the term blowjob.

They were wrong of course.

Marcy said it while she was on the teevee with David Schuster. OMG! a blogger talks dirty on teevee!

Torture OK, Blowjob, OMG!

No time to find reference link but it was last month I think.

this is great Christy–I missed the beginning though. I teach a class on civil rights and liberties and would love to watch this from the beginning to get me charged up as I prepare for the new semester. if you can, could you provide a link to the whole discussion? I appreciate that you said you’d put up text of your opening statement and a summary of the discussion–will certainly look for that—just figured I’d ask about video.

Thanks for posting about this

Thanks.

LOL, the funniest part of that video was the reaction of the MSNBC anchors. LOL.

My God, like the word BLOW and JOB are awful.

Another funny part in that segment was the right wing guy basically agreeing that Alberto Gonzalez had politicized the Justice Department. Nice when nutjobs agree the sky is blue once in a while.

Thanks for the link, and the laugh.

Give em hell Marcy ! ! ! !

check on CSpan. They may rerun it or at least you can probably stream from the archive once it’s there.

Love her closing remark. Hit on the hold up of Johnson too.

NICE JOB CHRISTY! !

I still don’t get how these “holds” in the Senate are constitutional.

Of course, I also don’t understand how filibusters are constititional either since the Constitution makes clear the circumstances that require super majorities.

Guess I’m just an idiot.

Eli took some amazing photographs of Christy and her panel, available on his blog multi-medium.net

We added one of Eli’s photos to the top of the post – Christy you look great!

Great job Christy – you did great. Kudos

Christy,

Liked the plug for the Lake. Nicely done!

Christy,

Would you endeavor to expose the issue of “exempt corporate tax status,” in health care? Like……. why certain health insurers are considered public charities for tax law purposes? Please explain why Kaiser or BCBS is considered, public charity?? Does not seem logical that a public charity would deny coverage, or let people die for profit? Lets mandate health insurance and enslave people to assure corporates profit via the “luck” of the “genetic lottery!” I believe the same mentality which perpetuated the institution of slavery is a work here. Slavery and corporate servitude achieved by economic leveraging…. enemies from within? Corporate Identity vs the individual rights of Americans? Jefferson, Madison. who else warned America of the deleterious effects on the Union brought by monied interests, monopolies and corporations who value profit more than life…………….

http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/nccsTools.php

According to Article One, Section Five of the Constitution, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings. . . “

If they pass a rule saying it takes 50%+1 or 60% or 100% to approve a given measure, they can do that.

I’m sorry, but I don’t buy “Rules of Proceedings” to include defining “passing” when the very same Constitution later goes on and defines specific circumstances when super majorities are required. It is not outrage0us to make the argument that since the very concept of democracy is based on majority rule and the requirement in the same document that a majority is required to conduct business and the same document later spells out specifically when super majorities are required, that the intent is clear that only a majority is required to pass a bill.

But, as I conceded above, I concede I’m an idiot, and therefore will stop now and not go back and forth on this with you.

A short history on the filibuster:

In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate’s right to unlimited debate.

Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as “cloture.” The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a fifty-seven day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or sixty of the current one hundred senators.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhi…..loture.htm