The Congressional session doesn't end until next year so long time to go to see if Kyl's joke gets further along. Haven't heard much, but it has always been like this for his bills and Leach's too. If there is going to be action it likely heats up around April/May of next year. I don't think it has much of a chance.
And no, Roberts is not a judge until he is approved. SC will go with one less judge if necessary until someone is approved. No backdoor appointments like the UN ambassador can be done.
And no, Roberts is not a judge until he is approved. SC will go with one less judge if necessary until someone is approved. No backdoor appointments like the UN ambassador can be done.
Bush could pull a recess appointment with ROberts but I don't think he will. On the other hand, look for a recess appointment for Bolton to the UN. A recess appointment is good until the next Congress, January 2007.
Kyl is a snake. He always likes to slip his things in at the end when people aren't paying attention. One year he brought his bill to the floor on a Friday, after they had just had an extended session/budget battle which kept them there three weeks longer than they expected. They wrapped up the budget late Thursday and most Senators were on their way home Friday morning when Kyl brought his bill to the floor with less than 10 senators in the chamber. It passed with "Unanimous consent." All he had to do was motion for it and since there were no objections, that was it.
He's the scum of the earth.
Kyl is a snake. He always likes to slip his things in at the end when people aren't paying attention. One year he brought his bill to the floor on a Friday, after they had just had an extended session/budget battle which kept them there three weeks longer than they expected. They wrapped up the budget late Thursday and most Senators were on their way home Friday morning when Kyl brought his bill to the floor with less than 10 senators in the chamber. It passed with "Unanimous consent." All he had to do was motion for it and since there were no objections, that was it.
He's the scum of the earth.
Dante said:
Something occured to me the other day....Did you guys ever think that the offshores love people like kyl and mccain? I mean these two guys pretty much guarantee that we keep sending our money to these offshores right? What would happen if they all of a sudden decided to legalize it in the USA?
They would be screwed from a competitive standpoint, but the best of them would be able to sell out at a fat premium to the US gaming companies. I have little expectations this will go through. You all should realize by now this proposal has less, not more, momentum than in past years and you all have seen how much success they have had. Also realize at first they wanted to ban it, put people in jail, and get ISPs to shut it down. Now they can´t even get a defacto shutdown of credit cards. This is just getting nowhere, but hey Kyl needs something to hang his hat on.
Word is that next year if this doesn´t pass or make movement, the regulatory idea just may come up. No assurances, but it seems more likely than before when Conyers couldn´t even get a committee to pass it.
Word is that next year if this doesn´t pass or make movement, the regulatory idea just may come up. No assurances, but it seems more likely than before when Conyers couldn´t even get a committee to pass it.
If you had, you would know Dubya could appoint Roberts to the S.C. without going thru the Senate just as Prez Kennedy did one of his nominees.Point of interest:
Roberts was my lawyer for a few days until he conflicted out.
I called him to take my case. He said he doesn't take just any case, he neede to look at it. He called back a few days later and said he would take it, just needed to run it past his executive committee but it shouldn't be a problem. A couple of days later it was a problem.
He was at a large firm called Hogan and Hartson, about 800 lawyers. Apparently they represented the NCAA and when the email went around that Roberts was going to represent me, the lawyer on the NCAA account chimed in and said he objected and my case was in conflict with his client.
But I do remember telling people when I hired him that the guy I just hired will be on the Supreme Court one day. You could just tell from his resume.
Roberts was my lawyer for a few days until he conflicted out.
I called him to take my case. He said he doesn't take just any case, he neede to look at it. He called back a few days later and said he would take it, just needed to run it past his executive committee but it shouldn't be a problem. A couple of days later it was a problem.
He was at a large firm called Hogan and Hartson, about 800 lawyers. Apparently they represented the NCAA and when the email went around that Roberts was going to represent me, the lawyer on the NCAA account chimed in and said he objected and my case was in conflict with his client.
But I do remember telling people when I hired him that the guy I just hired will be on the Supreme Court one day. You could just tell from his resume.
Jay---Would have NEVER guessed that about Roberts, Although, I'm not totally up on his record, but very interesting! You must have had a pretty decent opinion of him at the time, before there was a "problem". Maybe not a bad sign overall as I think he'll be approved, unless they come up with something VERY bad.
Probably a good thing Dante. But often cases that are brought to the SC ...there is a different "legal" issue than the one that seems obvious....So it's hard to say.
Also---sometimes these judges (unless you have concrete background of an opposing view) will vote differently than expected.
I'm just glad it was NOT kyl that he nominated.
Also---sometimes these judges (unless you have concrete background of an opposing view) will vote differently than expected.
I'm just glad it was NOT kyl that he nominated.
I work in the House of Representatives for a member who serves on the Financial Services Committee, where legislation such as the Kyl bill has been assigned in the past and would likely originate again. My boss, a Republican by the way, has OPPOSED this stuff and will do so again if it comes up.
Based on what I've heard/seen from committee staff, this is NOT a priority right now. I don't know why, but perhaps one reason is that the Democrat who was such a big mover behind it in previous Congresses is no longer there, and the top Democrat on the committee now, Barney Frank, has been at best lukewarm toward the whole idea. I also think the whole poker craze helps on the margins...its kind of like fantasy sports. So many constituents are involved in the fantasy stuff that it was exempted in previous
legislation. You start running into the same issue now with online poker...lots of constituents playing, and maybe, just maybe a couple of congresspeople, too...
That having been said, things can change at any time. What you hope for here is that Congress gets its spending bills done quickly this Fall, and that the Senate will get the Roberts thing out of the quickly, so everyone will go home. The longer these men and women stay in town, the more they start looking for something to do, for issues to tackle, for perceived problems to address. Unfortunately, I think we're gonna be here for a while...at least til Thanksgiving and possibly well into December. Always be vigilent.
Finally, a word about snakes. I've met Kyl a number times and my former boss served with him in the House. I've found nothing phoney about him. I'm clear on where he stands. That's as opposed to media darling McCain, who will take his cue from the New York Times editorial page. He'll talk about how bad gambling is then head right to the craps tables in Vegas.
As far as Kyl slipping something into a bill, or getting unanimous consent to insert a provision in the bill at the last minute, look at it this way. if it was something you wanted done, wouldn't you be happy to have a guy like that on your side, who knew how to use the rules to get things done? He' just following in the footsteps of others like liberal Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio, who was famous for knowing how to make the rules work to his advantage (Metzenbaum is, of course, no longer serving).
And if you don't like what Kyl's doing, you're blaming the wrong guy. When you seek to do something under unanimous consent, it only take ONE Senator to say two simple words..."I object" to stop a u.c. request dead in its tracks. Don't blame Kyl (or whoever)...blame the other 99, any one of whom could just say "no." Next time it happens, write your 2 senators and ask them why they didn't...
Based on what I've heard/seen from committee staff, this is NOT a priority right now. I don't know why, but perhaps one reason is that the Democrat who was such a big mover behind it in previous Congresses is no longer there, and the top Democrat on the committee now, Barney Frank, has been at best lukewarm toward the whole idea. I also think the whole poker craze helps on the margins...its kind of like fantasy sports. So many constituents are involved in the fantasy stuff that it was exempted in previous
legislation. You start running into the same issue now with online poker...lots of constituents playing, and maybe, just maybe a couple of congresspeople, too...
That having been said, things can change at any time. What you hope for here is that Congress gets its spending bills done quickly this Fall, and that the Senate will get the Roberts thing out of the quickly, so everyone will go home. The longer these men and women stay in town, the more they start looking for something to do, for issues to tackle, for perceived problems to address. Unfortunately, I think we're gonna be here for a while...at least til Thanksgiving and possibly well into December. Always be vigilent.
Finally, a word about snakes. I've met Kyl a number times and my former boss served with him in the House. I've found nothing phoney about him. I'm clear on where he stands. That's as opposed to media darling McCain, who will take his cue from the New York Times editorial page. He'll talk about how bad gambling is then head right to the craps tables in Vegas.
As far as Kyl slipping something into a bill, or getting unanimous consent to insert a provision in the bill at the last minute, look at it this way. if it was something you wanted done, wouldn't you be happy to have a guy like that on your side, who knew how to use the rules to get things done? He' just following in the footsteps of others like liberal Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio, who was famous for knowing how to make the rules work to his advantage (Metzenbaum is, of course, no longer serving).
And if you don't like what Kyl's doing, you're blaming the wrong guy. When you seek to do something under unanimous consent, it only take ONE Senator to say two simple words..."I object" to stop a u.c. request dead in its tracks. Don't blame Kyl (or whoever)...blame the other 99, any one of whom could just say "no." Next time it happens, write your 2 senators and ask them why they didn't...
Nomad1951 said:
Barney Frank? He is the guy who has written articles and been interviewed saying we should legalize sports betting. I can't see a way in hell he would support Kyl.
McCain never talks about how bad gambling is. I have heard a number of different angles on why he is against Vegas having college sports betting, but not sure which is right so I don't get into it. In any case he has been quite a good supporter of Nevada gambling interests. While those interests are telling him to back off on the college betting ban, they still like the things he has supported in the past. And yes everyone knows he is a big donator at the casinos himself, often visiting Laughlin and Las Vegas.
