"The standars of hygiene are such that it would face prosecution if it were a restaurant serving the public."

So would a, well, horse stable, my roommate's bedroom, the KappaSigmaWhatever house and zillions of other places. That is why the standards for restaurants serving the public are generally only enforced on restaurants serving the public.

That's standards

Without milk, tea, and sugar for 18 hours?

Oh, the horror of it all!

From the article:
"The food in the refrigerator was sometimes so decayed that she once had to make pasta with mushrooms covered in slime."

Right, everyone knows you can't *possibly* make pasta without mushrooms.

Greer insists that Big Brother "needs a producer like fucking Vinnie Falcone to ride (their) asses"

don't forget biko.

this is part of the reason why i don't watch big brother.

i do watch the amazing racethough.

the prison statement i a little telling though. it finally is shedding a little light on the abu ghraib thing. not that i approve! but it appeared little more than a vicious 8th grade hazing ritual to me.

no tea or milk? no wonder why the left went ape over abu ghraib.

>>the inmates had been without such basic supplies as milk, tea and sugar for 18 hours.

That comment alone pretty explains why the Middle East hates us.

OT - You guys may wish to get ready for the big news from the Inauguration. The shock of Reinquist's appearance may overshadow Bush's speech.

According to a NY Post reporter who encountered SCOTUS aides moving the Chief Justice in a wheelchair in a tunnel under the Capitol to the inaugural stand, he is shrunken, eyes sunken, bald, blotchy-skinned. He was wearing a white plastic collar around his neck to cover radiation burns and a recent tracheotomy - and had difficulty rising from his wheelchai as Capitol police kept the public away...

http://nypost.com/news/nationalnews/38158.htm

I don't see how the guy can stand, let alone speak. The regular public impression, even if he does - may be "why is an 80-year old man physically unfit to hold any other job still leading one of the 3 Branches of our Gevernment??"

I know, I know...lifetime title. A bit of American judicial brilliance most other countries have seen fit to reject. And the Pope is proving that lifetime appointment to ensure Papal independence isn't that great an idea in that institution, either

I think Kim du Toit said it best when he described the moves of the modern left as the "pussification of America."

We simply must realize that minor difficulties, particularly those that we subject ourselves to, are not everyone else's problem.

Cedarford:

You are probably right in that Justice Rehnquist's appearance will surprise many people. But one could hope the public will realize that his physical health is largely irrelevant to his ability to do his actual job, which is to apply the law.

If physical incapacity were a disqualification for work of a mental nature only, then Stephen Hawking would have been drummed out of physics decades ago.

Of course, should any Democrats snipe about having a man in a wheelchair heading up one of the three branches of the US government, the obvious answer is just three letters - F.D.R.

Cheers.

What's the preferred procedure here: Do we ignore Cedarford, which is the prevailing wisdon on how to handle trolls, or do we just keep pointing out what a dumbass he is?

Hmm. Doug votes for "cedarford, you're a dumbass" option. And nicely done, too!

Oh. My. God. This is unbelievable.

You mean to tell me that Germaine Greer hasn't yet died of irrelevance?

Doug and Julie ignore there is no way we would allow an incapacitated President to remain in power. Nor a CEO. There have been other SCOTUS Juctices whose age, mental, and/or physical health have prevented them from performing their duties - but they have been kept in office by loyal staffers pulling the puppet strings on their boss to prevent the day of resignation and possibly the day their own positions end.

To my knowledge, Doug, FDR did not miss several months of White House meetings and military briefings towards the end of WWII - promising to review matters when he could and sign off on them. We did have the position of Prez Wilson having a stroke and loyal staffers and his wife - his Vatican Curia, so to speak - acting in his name for months.

The 22nd Amendment curtailed such abuses at least for the Presidency - requiring a transfer of power in cases of permanent or temporary incapacity.

In other critical jobs in the private sector and government, there is a mandatory retirement age or the requirement for yearly physicals and doctors OK to continue in the job. We except only judges from this in the government sector, that and people going for elective office - people were free to keep re-electing Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd..

I can't decide which disturbs me more:

"...the Big Brother “house” the inmates had been without such basic supplies as milk, tea and sugar for 18 hours."

or

"..he said he could not function without it [Diet Coke]..."

CedarTroll wrote: "The 22nd Amendment curtailed such abuses at least for the Presidency - requiring a transfer of power in cases of permanent or temporary incapacity."

Perhaps you could point out the specific part of the 22nd amendment that addresses "transfer of power in cases of permanent or temporary incapacity".

Julie,

My opinion is its better to ignore CedarTroll. That way he can go make an ass of himself over at the Belmont Club.

But this was too good to resist :)

I can't help but wonder if Cedarford considers being Jewish a "permanent or temporary incapacity."

Okay, BrewFan, but is CedarTroll so stupid as to believe his own ill-informed, factually-challenged opinions? Or, is he stupid for thinking people would ever believe his crap?

Wow, that chick shouldn't go camping. She'd be appalled at the living conditions in certain forests. But I would encourage her to cook with any and all mushrooms she can find.

Julie & Brewfan;

Just wanted you to know that...that...I cherish the painful burns you deliver to Cedarbitch. I celebrate every smiting, every vicious spanking with the rolled-up magazine of Truth and Knowledge. I couldn't let another day go by without saying that I... love both of you. It's important to tell people that, because, you know, we aren't here forever.

Don't ever stop.

Julie,

Yes.

lauraw,

{{{hug}}}

Thanks! You've brightened up a Packer-less Sunday!

How did a thread on Germaine Greer degenerate into a discussion of the elderly and incapacitated?

It makes no sense to compare Justice Rehnquist to an executive whose position requires physical and mental endurance. The Supreme Court often functions without its full complement, and often without a Chief Justice.

Since his recent illness became public, Rehnquist's imminent retirement has been widely assumed. God knows what Cedarfool is so bothered about.

Aw, Brewfan...so it's the 25th not the 22nd. You knew exactly what I was talking about, so cherish your nit-picking points, cause that's all it was for you....

And Julie, after the Inauguration, the debate about lifetime appointments & unfit Supreme Court Justices will restart. And my predictions will be right while you, Julie, will still be a brainless jingoistic idiot unable to think on your own. You see, what I did was point out a major issue, provide a link, and anticipate this will become a national controversy - and point out the Pope in his 83-year old dotage is also failing to show the value of lifetime appointments to positions of high power/responsibility.

Constitutional scholars still debate the record of close SCOTUS votes of the past when a Justice who voted was known to be in senility or in such poor health their judgment and reasoning powers were or could be impaired to the detriment of serving the public and discharging their official capacities - but struggled to stay on rather than relinquish personal power...

Lauraw - The only use you would get out of a rolled up magazine of Truth and Knowledge is if someone shoved it in your mouth to shut you up and let an intelligent discussion continue.

There won't be any 'debate' about lifetime appointments. Low-level murmurs, maybe. And of course, hysterical blog-comments by raving nitwits.

The reason is simple. If Rehnquist keels over tomorrow, there will be no crisis. His absence will have approximately zero impact on public policy. Nobody's life will be affected.

The Supreme Court always has one or more justices of advanced age. Rehnquist's infirmity is nothing new. He will be replaced in due course, as always happens. Only a fool would get excited about it.

Cedar -- among those justices who kept at the job even after many suspected their mental faculties were declining due to advanced age were Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun, all reliable liberals. Was your position on the problems with lifetime appointments the same then with regard to those justices as it is now with regard to Rehnquist? If not, I'd hope you would explain your basis for drawing a distinction. I certainly don't remember hearing commentators calling for those justices' forced retirement at the time; perhaps the fact that for two out of three of them, Republican presidents were set to pick their successors.

Stevens is getting on in years too -- nobody's suggesting he's anywhere near losing it; in fact, I understand he's extremely sharp, especially with respect to business law -- but if he ends up holding out for retirement in the hopes of outlasting Bush's ability to pick his successor, to the point where people start to think his faculties are degrading, will you maintain consistency in your position with respect to him?

CedarTroll: The only jingoistic idiot unable to think on your own – is you. Yet, you feel qualified to lecture us on judicial appointments. One would think that after you're embarrassingly idiotic analysis of Janice Rogers Brown's qualifications, you would have been intelligent enough to STFU. Obviously, not. As already pointed out by Lyle, there will be no crisis. This Chicken Little approach to life of yours is, well, boring and childish.

And CedarTroll, the only use you would get out of a rolled up magazine of Truth and Knowledge is if someone shoved it up your ass and the concepts transferred by osmosis.

He's back! I thought he was still at Pat Buchanan's, braiding each other's hair.

Don't blame me when you get whipped, Paleo-boy. Blame the Jews, as always.

It sounds like Greer missed her calling as a frustrated house wife.

I'm guessing: Kerry voter.

Alex - As a conservative, I was upset over some very close votes that Blackmun and Marshall did in their dotage. Also Brennan, who like Marshall frequently fell asleep during orals, starting in his late 70's and signed his name to opinions written entirely by his handlers. Add in William O. Douglas, who got so bad towards the end he was reading majority opinions or dissents and started trying to sign whatever was put in front of him, even if his staffers said he was on the other side of the issue.

I only think Sandra O'Connor is showing signs of mental confusion of the present Justices, something that Scalia has obliquely referred to in his nuclear dissents that discuss O'Connors reasoning, or lack thereof. But Reinquist missed case arguments while he is gravely ill and is still insisting on voting. Show me a corporate Board where the collective age is over 70 and I will tell you to dump stock in that place.

Agree Stevens is still sharp by all accounts. Remember what I said about going away from lifetime appointments - it could be term limits - it could be a mandatory retirement age imposed on othe unelected lawyers in other government employment, it could be appointment contingent on a permanent mental or physical incapacitation not developing that precludes a Justice from carrying out their office. But that he appears to be putting off a planned retirement hoping he can outlast the choices of the electorate and thwart naming his successor until HE wants it - when a Democrat makes it into office - makes Stevens, not the electorate, the President, or the Senate - the same as royalty - he will abdicate his crown on SCOTUS only when HE determines a pick will favor the Democrats.

Julie, who plucked her rolled-up magazine out of some orifice of hers to opine.....is evidently still burned that her great idea of nominating a California Justice with no Federal Appellate or high office-holder background to not only skip the Appellate stage, but skip the Justice phase and go right to Chief Justice - was ridiculed. Julie points out her entitlement by biography and affirmative action bonus points..."Butshe's black, she's female, she's a sharecropper's daughter!!" As if no higher credentials are needed to vault past 800 or so higher qualified candidates. Julie might have a point that Brown must be made Chief Justice if she is also lesbian, handicapped, and her mother died of breast cancer....

CedarTroll wrote: "But Reinquist missed case arguments while he is gravely ill and is still insisting on voting"

Not to be crude but this man has bowel movements that are smarter then you, CedarTroll. Do you really believe 'case arguments' have any influence on the Justices of the Supreme Court? Reinquist (I'm a little biased because he is a fellow cheesehead after all) is too smart and dedicated to his country to cast an uninformed vote. Where do you get your information? The National Enquirer?

Say you're sorry and go to bed now.

Cedartroll: Thank you again for demonstrating how eager you are to demonstrate how little you know. Yes, Janice Rogers Brown is well qualified. You would know that if you weren't an idiot and knew anything about the courts and law. Also, you are a liar because I never mentioned her personal background in any way, shape, or form. Nor, do I care. I read her opinions. Something, of course, you never did. But, nothing ever stops you from shooting off your fat, ignorant, hateful, yap.

I'm going to have to come up with a new pseudonym for this wretched hive of scum and villainy so I don't keep confusing myself with the Other Alex.

Alex, I hope we can figure something out. Maybe I'll use this one, or something.

As for the argument about Rehnquist, I've got to chide a couple of folks for the way they're arguing with Cedarford. I know this is Ace's forum, and it's for him to tell people how to behave, not me; but it struck me that the jump to label him "troll" was a little hasty. I don't know what his history might be, but at least where this comment thread is concerned I didn't think Cedar was "trolling" with his first post: he simply expressed a point of view that some of us disagreed with, and it seems he's at least argued it reasonably. You might disagree with him or point out flaws in his arguments, but because you disagree doesn't mean the argument was a troll.

Posting an unpopular or controversial opinion isn't trolling. Trolling is posting "bait," often reflecting opinions that aren't even sincerely held, that is intentionally calculated to provoke a heated emotional response for the troller's entertainment. As an acquaintance of mine from Usenet, Geoff Miller, often observes, there's a tendency among some folks to use accusations of trolling as an excuse not to take seriously views that one finds disagreeable. It spares them the trouble of having to put together a decent rebuttal.

"The Other Alex"

SpewFan

thinks it is no gig deal to miss oral arguments presentation, Q&A, and discussions with fellow justices and staff on the highest level cases.

By his standards, we could have a murder case presented to an absent Bench...with the assurance.."Don't worry!" the judge will read the transcripts at home when and if his health improves and render a decision.

That's sorta what they said when Blackmun and Marshall fell asleep - the justices were able to compensate for lack of aware attendence by looking over the paperwork later and asking staff what hapened. Of course the SCOTUS and lower Courts have ordered new trials when evidence of a Lawyer being too ill to do his job or falling asleep in Court happens.

And why does Julie think one of 450-475 State Supreme Court Justices in the USA should be vaulted over her many peers and the hundreds of State judges promoted to the Federal District Appellate level with tons more experience? And the 8 Justices on SCOTUS - to become Janice Brown the Black Female Shorecropper's daughter WHO Became Chief Justice of the USA......Wow, what a heartwarming, inspiring story that would be!

Why? Only because she is highly qualified....Julie bleats from her affirmative action loving lips...better than the hundreds of other candidates who served at both the State AND Federal Appellate level. And better than hundreds of her peers with only State Apellate background.

BTW - in many ways College Prez and former HEW Secretary Donna Shalala is qualified to be President. In Julie's mind, maybe more so than others- because she is female, part of an Arab minority, and afflicted with dwarfism. Talk about an imperative to be elected to inspire short people, especially those coming here from the Muslim countries. Then again, Julie might like Hillary...given she is dumpy, plain- looking and hounded by lesbian rumors she may be qualified by Julie's criteria..

I'm afraid it's too late for that, Alex_sf. The only way to end this is ritual combat.

Interestingly, there was an op-ed published today that I read a few minutes ago on the issues of lifetime appointments and extreme old age, length of tenure problems affecting the Federal Judiciary.

Had some things I hadn't mentioned that are quite important.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/weekinreview/16gree.html?oref=login&pagewanted=all&position=

The facts the writer adds?

1. The question about lifetime tenure and ossified or incapacitated judges is a raging controvery in the legal community.

2. There is growing concern that length of tenure at the Supreme Court and extreme age when members depart has made the nominations extraordinary in political nature , vs. just another important senior nomination. And Justices have politically timed their resignations to try and get a political appointee with similar ideology. Which means the lifetime appointment, intended on shielding the highest level from the influence of politics, is becoming one of the main events of politics....something the founders did not expect,

3. Only Rhode Island among the states has lifetime appointments of state judges. The most corrupt state? RI. All other states have age, term limits. Several Western states have elections for the highest level judges and provisions for voterr recall. All other democratic nations do not have lifetime appointments of their highest judges.

4. From 1790-1970, the average SCOTUS Justice was appointed without much controversy, served 15 years on average, and age on leaving the bench averaged 68.5 years. Since 1970, a majority of SCOTUS appointments have been highly political affairs in the Senate, service term is now up to 26 years, and average age on leaving is 78.8 years old and rising.

I see that Cedarshit is from the "ritually slaughter the rulers when they show signs of infirmity and read their entrails for omens" school of political thought. Seriously, I was beginning to wonder if I had been hallucinating the creepy comments from this weirdo. I'm glad I'm not alone in my disgust.

Anyway, getting back to the topic -- how devoid of common sense is Greer when she goes ahead making food with "mushrooms covered in slime"? Hey, I like mushrooms, but they add very little nutritional value to a meal, and there was no reason for her to use them. What an anile old biddy.

raging controvery in the legal community

No, Cedarford. You are wrong about this. And if you gleaned this point of view from the NYT, then it is wrong.

This is one of those points that a handful of academics debate. It's not something debated by "the legal community," which is more concerned about everyday practice.

something the founders did not expect

According to whom?

The most corrupt state? RI.

According to whom?

average age on leaving is 78.8 years old and rising

Yes, yes, yes. And average people are living longer too. So what's the point? Are you *shock* saying judges also live longer? Just like normal people?

Oh, and just so you know, a NYT op-ed is not exactly authoritative about or dispositive of an argument. So, go back and check on the definition of the word FACT--as opposed, you know, to opinion (as in opinion from an editorial).

Now, run away and find more extraneous crap for our collective amusement.

Hey, where's the respect for Constitutional tradition here? The idea of lifetime tenure on the Supreme Court isn't something we ought to be changing lightly, is it?

Now, if someone were to appoint a dimwit like, oh, I don't know, Germaine Greer to the bench, I might feel differently.

Alex_sf wrote: "I don't know what his history might be..."

Before you decided to 'chide' this would have been a very relevant exercise for you to engage in. Unless your post was intended to illustrate what a 'troll' is, in which case you were successful.

And why does Julie think one of 450-475 State Supreme Court Justices in the USA should be vaulted over her many peers and the hundreds of State judges promoted to the Federal District Appellate level with tons more experience? . . . Why? Only because she is highly qualified....

Yep.

Julie bleats from her affirmative action loving lips...

You are the only person who "bleats" about affirmative action all the time. Everyone else is focused on qualifications.

better than the hundreds of other candidates who served at both the State AND Federal Appellate level. And better than hundreds of her peers with only State Apellate background.

Yes.

BTW - in many ways College Prez and former HEW Secretary Donna Shalala is qualified to be President. In Julie's mind, maybe more so than others-

Shalala's not qualified at all. But, you're too stupid to know this, CedarTroll. Yet, you still feel the need to share your ignorant opinions.

Julie might like Hillary...given she is dumpy, plain- looking and hounded by lesbian rumors she may be qualified by Julie's criteria..

Uh, oh, CedarTroll insinuates I'm a lesbian, which is the corollary of Godwin's Law which means he loses. That, plus, every argument he makes is ignorant and stupid.

Sigh.

Meanwhile, feminists are awkwardly absent when it comes to what's taking place in China. They're working to make aborting a female a crime.

I wonder which side of the fence they'd choose?