I wonder how the rocket man (or Yoo, for that matter)would justify Bush overturning the 22nd Amendment by running for a third term?

What? You don’t think he’s not thinking about it?

Does “Were not pulling out of Iraq on my watch,” not give you a hint?

I wonder how the rocket man (or Yoo, for that matter)would justify Bush overturning the 22nd Amendment by running for a third term?

Why bother running?

You strike to the heart of the issue, sir. Democrats are terrorist-lovers and traitors in general, and abdicating the Oval Throne to one would place the country in such grave danger that it must not be done, even at the cost of our very way of life! You see, only Dubya has the awe-inspiring strength and unbending will to make these kinds of momentous decisions.

Screw Assrocket, Swank for Ultimate Wingnut! Yeah, I said it.

Dear Lord. He really said it, didn’t he?

It still doesen’t beat his “Bush is a genius artiste that plays for an ungrateful crowd.” line.

Diamonds, Daisies, Flakes,
(That Wingnut!)
Chestnuts, Rainbows, Springtime for Hitler…
(Is That Wingnut)
He’s a noose on a tree…
He’s everything that every wingnut should be!

Fables, Brown Shirts, Whiteboy Whine,
(That Wingnut!)
Tweed, Boobies, Fraud’s Way…
(Is That Wingnut)
He’s George’s alone, but luckily for you…
If you find a wingnut to love,
Only one wingnut to love,
Then he’ll be That Wingnut too…
That Wingnut!

Here’s the money shot for ButtBreaker the whore (directorial um…emphasis mine):

The final question, of course, is what would happen if the President and the Supreme Court should disagree about the constitutional scope of the President’s national security powers. The President has the right and duty to interpret and apply the Constitution to the same degree as the Supreme Court. In a situation like this one, where the President is not asking the federal courts to enforce his view of his constitutional authority through, e.g., a criminal prosecution, it may be that the President could, and should, disregard an opinion of the Supreme Court that he regards as erroneous, as Lincoln did with regard to Chief Justice Taney’s habeas corpus order during the Civil War.

Um, I thought it was the fucking JUDICIAL BRANCH of the government that interprets the laws, and the executive enforces them. Ben Franklin told me so.

Carried out to its anti-logical conclusion, why don’t we just get rid of those branches…nah, appendices of government and have the President rule over all? John Stossel would love the tax money that will save!

I think ButtBreaker is in a lower class of lawyers than the injury lawyers advertised during Maury and Jerry Springer. If that’s possible…

Hey, Cheney said the same thing today, so it MUST be true!

BTW, the reason the R’s haven’t started pushing for the repeal of the 22nd Amendment is that if they did, Clinton could run again, and he’d beat Bush bloody, Diebold notwithstanding.

So they’ve got to go the Military emergency/ martial law route. I would expect that to start developing in late 2007.

Yeah, that’s right, gimme my tinfoil

Are you sure that was Assrocket? At the bottom it says “Posted by Scott at 08:09 AM.”

They’re both lawyers, so the question is where did the writer get his law degree, in a box of Cracker Jack?

Somebody explain to me in what substanitive way a president who can interpret the laws and disregard Supreme Court decisions he dislikes differs from a dictator?

Yeah, I thought not. Thanks, anyway.

Manno, the offending passages are from edits made by Hinderaker to the original post by Scott. All of the Three Castrati weighed in on that post.

Jillian,

I found this site linking to powerline and seemingly advocating just that, if a bit tongue in cheek.

At least, I hope he’s being tongue in cheek.

Sorry, this site.

Hey, teh l4m3, what tune, if any, is that lyric sung to? My fevered brain keeps trying to shoehorn it into “My Favorite Things” from The Sound of Music (and I’m not even a musicals queen, sheesh), but it doesn’t seem to fit.

“Somebody explain to me in what substanitive way a president who can interpret the laws and disregard Supreme Court decisions he dislikes differs from a dictator?”

Because he’s an American, and Americans (not, of course, including liberals) are, by definition, not dictators, terrorists, invaders, or torturers.

Not to get circumlocutory on all of you, and abruptly, and rather rudely interfere with the conversational flow, but I feel a littel sentimental on this New Year and wanted to share these words with all of you:

Thank all of you for allowing me to be a part of your dysfunctional family in ’05. You are, without a doubt, the dysfunctional family I never had. Keep in mind that right-wing families are perfect! And that can kind of suck sometimes.

I’m still not changing my vote, Brad.

Happy New Year, folks. I’ve folded a couple hundred cranes today, and hopefully that’s enough to bring a little peace into each of our lives for a day or so. After that, it’s probably up to the President.
Cherish it while ya got it, gang.

Well, isn’t anyone going to say Happy New Year back to Sidhe? Where are your manners? C’mon, let’s say it all together:

HAPPY NEW YEAR, SIDHE!

Marq: it’s a version of the theme from That Girl! (with Marlo Thomas) reworked for the new millennium! It’s outta sight!

Oh, and Happy New Year, fellow LittleSadNoBalls!

Gee, thanks for reassuring me there, guys. For a moment I forgot that the defintion of “dictator” is “swarthy man with accent who smokes cigars and is bad for America”.

And after all, Bush isn’t swarthy at all.

Happy New Year!

Amazing, how often Hindrocky is That Wingnut. Almost like a go-to wingnut. Does the President’s ego need stroking? Does a loony policy need justifying? Pass it to AssMissle and he takes it to the hole like Karl Malone.

He’s real consistent that way.

Information about marijuanastay drug test detoxification products