Pelosi feeling light-headed with no Bush or Repub check on her power

[KingCondanomation]

Pelosi said one of her favorite moments from Inauguration Day was when Marine One lifted off the Capitol grounds, signifying former President George W. Bush's exit from Washington. "It felt like a 10-pound anvil was lifted off my head," she said.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...politics&tsp=1

[DamnYankee]

I hope she goes liberal-ballistic and completely destroys the economy with a fantastic spending spree.

[KingCondanomation]

I expect she goes liberal-ballistic and completely destroys the economy with a fantastic spending spree.

Fixed.

[Onceler]

I love the "completely destroys the economy." Because, you know...it's flying so high right now after 8 years of GOP stewardship...

[Damocles]

I love the "completely destroys the economy." Because, you know...it's flying so high right now after 8 years of GOP stewardship...

It can get worse.

[uscitizen]

yeah the repubs have just folded up.
94-2 confirmation vote on Hillary?

[Bonestorm]

yeah the repubs have just folded up.
94-2 confirmation vote on Hillary?

Pampers Vitter and Jim "WOLVERINES!!!1!11!" DeMint voted against.

But they haven't totally folded up just yet. "Big John" Cornyn is fighting against the nomination of Eric Holder to be nation's chief law enforcement officer on the grounds that Holder actually might enforce the law.

[DamnYankee]

Fixed.

Thanks. Actually that is better.

[KingCondanomation]

But they haven't totally folded up just yet. "Big John" Cornyn is fighting against the nomination of Eric Holder to be nation's chief law enforcement officer on the grounds that Holder actually might enforce the law.

Yep it's true alright, here's the quote:
"I em aginst this here nomernation of Eric Holder cause he might ackshually inforce the lawwww!" - John Cornyn

Sorry no link.

[DamnYankee]

yeah the repubs have just folded up.
94-2 confirmation vote on Hillary?

I hope, or expect, the Republicans to destroy themselves further as well, as per your astute observation.

[Bonestorm]

Yep it's true alright, here's the quote:
"I em aginst this here nomernation of Eric Holder cause he might ackshually inforce the lawwww!" - John Cornyn

Sorry no link.

I've got the actual quote and link for you:

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) is seeking more information from Holder on whether the Department of Justice will pursue criminal prosecutions of "intelligence personnel" involved in detainee interrogations.

Holder declared that "waterboarding is torture" during last week's session in the Judiciary Committee. That statement raises the possibility that the government agents who used the method, which simulates drowning, could be prosecuted.

Holder said that the Obama administration does not want to "crimilinalize policy disputes" with the Bush White House during that hearing, but Republicans want a more firm commitment from the prospective attorney general.

"It could well be there will be a request to delay the markup for a week so those questions can be asked and answered," Cornyn said. "Part of my concern relates to his statements at the hearing with regard to torture and what his intentions are toward our intelligence personnel who were operating in good faith based on their understanding of what the law was."

You're welcome.



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17747.html

[KingCondanomation]

I've got the actual quote and link for you:




You're welcome.



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17747.html

Ok that's what I thought, he has questions on Holder's interpretation of the law, which of course happens all the time.
You don't need to lie next time.

[Immanuel]

It can get worse.

Actually, it most likely will get worse before it gets better and that is despite any efforts by President Obama.

Immie

[Bonestorm]

Ok that's what I thought, he has questions on Holder's interpretation of the law, which of course happens all the time.
You don't need to lie next time.

It isn't an issue of interpretation. It's an issue of enforcement. Here's the quote again by Cornyn with respect to torture:

Part of my concern relates to his statements at the hearing with regard to torture and what his intentions are toward our intelligence personnel who were operating in good faith based on their understanding of what the law was."

Cornyn isn't saying that he disagrees with respect to whether waterboarding is torture. He just wants to know whether Holder intends to pursue prosecution of intelligence officials (and, presumably, those that ordered it) for torturing detainees.

Note also that Cornyn says that the intelligence officials were operating in good faith based on their understanding of what the law was, not that the intelligence officials were operating in accordance with what the law actually is.

Not really a question of interpretation. It's solely a question of enforcement. People broke the law. Now what is Holder going to do about it. Cornyn objects to the chief law enforcement officer enforcing the law.

Nice try, though.

[KingCondanomation]

It isn't an issue of interpretation. It's an issue of enforcement. Here's the quote again by Cornyn with respect to torture:




Cornyn isn't saying that he disagrees with respect to whether waterboarding is torture. He just wants to know whether Holder intends to pursue prosecution of intelligence officials (and, presumably, those that ordered it) for torturing detainees.

Note also that Cornyn says that the intelligence officials were operating in good faith based on their understanding of what the law was, not that the intelligence officials were operating in accordance with what the law actually is.

Not really a question of interpretation. It's solely a question of enforcement. People broke the law. Now what is Holder going to do about it. Cornyn objects to the chief law enforcement officer enforcing the law.

Nice try, though.

What on earth? Are only lawyers allowed to dispute interpretations of the law? The intelligence officials went with their understanding of the law like a lot do, perhaps they are wrong, perhaps if they were wrong they saw an argument for how they were not and went with that.
You assume they are talking of waterboarding, I see no evidence of that and even if they were, don't assume that just because Cornyn doesn't come out and say he disputes waterboarding is torture means he agrees that it is. More than likely he simply does not want to say waterboarding because it's one of those buzzwords that attract more of the wrong attention.


In any event, it was only in 2007 that Bush signed an executive order banning torture (which still did not specifically include waterboarding but one could argue it does which is too long to get into here), thus the actual waterboarding acts of 2002 and 2003 should not be retroactively prosecuted anyway and perhaps THAT is the assurance that Cornyn is looking for.
Not all senators are looking to pass the buck and let the little people get it because someone wants some retribution for a particularly irksome act that offended the left more than most other acts did.