activeless judges

VOTE
* g says "I'd love to see *any* Senator stand up on January 6, but alas, I don't think it's going to happen. Who is brave enough to put their career on the line, for something as trivial as democracy and justice? Obama, can you hear me?" my fee;ing/hope is that someone/s will actually join conyers. whether that makes a diffference in terms of jonk44 im not sure - at a minimum it'd put an asterisk next to the jihadmin 2.0 - and the remnants of the mandate thingy would be undermined. pre-911, i read that a plurality of amcits really thought that something treasonous had happened with scotus et al. 911 did actually 'change everything' at least wrt the badmin. id love to see obama get immortalised in the next f911 - what a fairytale 12 months it would have been for him! as to g's point about standing up for democracy & justice - id get my rocks off if it was a repug, rather than a dem - the moderate repugs could do a zell. wouldnt that be sweet. to the extent that there are some moderate repugs, surely they would feel more at home in the dem camp anyways. and to g's "putting their career on the line" - seems to me that its not difficult to imagine that someone can actually *increase* their career status / visibility by actually standing up. why not? given what we now know about 2000, if some dem senator had stood up with the cbc then and signed, they prolly would have had a good platform to run in 04 - even if that challenge had been effectively 'unsuccessful'. remember, 43 'will be' inaugurated with the lowest approval ratings ever - if things go downhill over the next 4 years (likely), then the person who stood up to him will have a triffic basis for an 08 campaign: 'i tried to warn us'. and once the gao study comes out, and the dems have promised their own investigation of 04 (in a few months time) - then itll become increasingly obvious, in retrospect, that 04 was stolen just like 2000 - seems to me it could actually be career-enhancing to be the senator who stands up - for some of em at least. or why cant someone soon to be retired sign on - like robert byrd? or someone without presidential ambitions from an uberblu state? im not sure if *only* one senator can sign on (officially) - or if multiple senators can - surely theres safety in numbers - whether its official or not. its not difficult seeing a situation in four years time where *only* demsens who signed on could conceivably run for pres. and btw - with a modicum of spin the decision to sign can be framed as 'making every vote count' or 'the congressman who was investigating ohio fraud (conyers) figured that there was sufficient concern - that was sufficient for me to be concerned." or "it wasnt about jonk/bush, its in the name of democracy - we celebrate that the peeps of ukr got a 2nd chance - yuschenko didnt get tainted as a 'sore loser' " or "if i ahve to put democracy above my own self-interest, id do it everyone" or "there was a pending legal challenge in ohio - therefore i couldnt pretend that there werent any concerns" blah blah blah. anyways, i hope that someone stands up for democracy and justice and/or fear of fascism and/or ww4, but id settle for some self-interested, perfectly rational, political grandstanding :-)

* ftr - its not exactly obvious what happens if a senator does stand up - the headline is that the Houses would split for a 2 hour debate - altho it seems that this is a procedural 'rule' which is subject to challenge - and its not exactly obvious whether its 2 hours period, or 2hrs per state - or even 2hrs per electoral vote - and then (i think) if either House decided to reject the electoral votes, then i think it falls to the Speaker - outcomes include giving the election to jonk, calling for a revote, or even nominating the next pres. probab the only thing we could count on would be litigation (on that issue, rhenquist seems to be having a deathbed conversion). its difficult to imagine that there might even be the infrastructure for a revote - how to ensure that the same probs dont appear again?

* its not impossible imagining repugrats deserting a sinking ship pretty quickly.fear of being hung for treason might be a catalyst of sorts.

* "President Bush's re-election campaign asked the chief justice of
the Ohio Supreme Court on Monday to throw out a challenge of the
election in this swing state, saying the case resembles "a poorly
drafted script for a late night conspiracy-theory movie.""
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/03/ohio.vote.ap/

* the ap is brilliant "Peace activists, musicians and politicians
are among the 37 voters challenging President Bush’s November
2 election."
dear AP, how about "politicians, peace activists and musicians" or
praps " "politicians, teachers and doctors"
http://www.wytv.com/news/headlines/1319356.html

* ""We're talking to a number of senators," Conyers said Monday. "I
think we're going to get some [senators' support on Thursday] this
time. I don't think they'll embarrass themselves again. They left
it up to Michael Moore last time.""
http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/coner104

* "Talking Points for January 6th Objecting to Electors:" http://www.unioncountyfordemocracy.org/files/jan6points.html

WARP
* amygoodman interviews robert fisk on iraq
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/03/1447225

AMDOM
* "House Republicans suddenly reversed course Monday, deciding to
retain a tough standard for lawmaker discipline and reinstate a
rule that would force Majority Leader Tom DeLay to step aside if
indicted by a Texas grand jury." boy, was i wrong about this??? are
the repugs weakening? will it show on jan6?
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_01_02.php#004333

________________________________________________________________________________
war makes me mad, sad, bad. tsunamis makes me sad.
wotisitgood4.blogspot.com