Technically correct: the Constitution does not provide specific details of how Supreme Court appointments are to be made. The fine details have been left up to the Senate and Executive (to a lesser degree, I believe). The executive branch has the right to nominate someone to the court, the Senate then has a duty to serve as a check on that. Technically there's nothing in the Constitution stating you're not allowed to advance a SC nominee weeks before an election.

It IS however, a naked partisan power grab. In 2016 one party argued, 8-9 months prior to the election, that their political opponents should not be able to have their SC nominee even get a hearing prior to the election. There was no actual precedent for this, but they insisted that the will of the electorate must be respected, and that we therefore must await the results of the election. So we did. Now 4 years later, the same party that insisted on respecting the will of the electorate in 2016 is taking precisely the opposite stance. Because last time they could potentially gain from the delay, and this time they almost certainly won't.

The CNN guy was correct: it is NOT unconstitutional to ram through a SC appointment. The authors of the Constitution didn't see fit to include that level of granularity in how the process would work. There is a process to clear this all up though: let's amend the Constitution! That's a super American thing to do! Let's establish, once and for all, the specific rules of the process. Then there won't be any back-and-forth like this about when a nominee can move ahead and when they can't. Nice and tidy.

The question then becomes: at what point in a President's term do they no longer get to nominate a replacement to the Supreme Court, when an election is pending? Should there in fact be no limit (like prior precedent, or lack thereof), and you believe that Merrick Garland should have been allowed hearings, and by extension the Amy Barrett hearings now are legit? Personally, I say we establish a cut-off to spare the political arguments in the future. Let's make it 100 days prior to the election: it's nice round number, bit over 3 months (so time for meaningful hearings and background checks), and should be after or at the end of primary season most cycles. That would of course invalidate both the 2016 and 2020 schemes by the Republicans, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

What's your take, Bob? How should this be handled? You posted the video, so I assume you have a stance on the issue?

Bit of a spoiler for those of us only two lieutenants/sub-bosses into the game...
According to this, after we off his brothers and sister, Father survives and nukes it all anyway. Bit of a let down.

Bought FC5 on a Steam sale last week. The DLC makes it a bit easy. Starting out with free machine guns, free Barrett rifles and a free pseudo Augusta/Bell Jet Ranger gunship is a bit like cheating.

I feel that he probably won't make it. Sadly once you are accused of sexual anything with a female, you are pretty much fucked. There is no more innocent until proven guilty. Were I him, even though it has been scientifically proven that lie detector tests are inherently flawed, I would have volunteered to take one just to push past this.

On the flip side, the possible next nominee is Judge Amy Coney Barrett and there is precedent for them to completely skip the committee vote, so there is a good possibility that we can still get a conservative judge on the court. She has not been as harsh towards abortion rights either, so there is a silver lining.

I couldn't stand Floyd when I was in junior high and high school because of the Wall, Dark Side of the Moon & Wish You Were Here. Then I eventually found all of the stuff that came before all of this stuff and became a fan. Live at Pompeii is a fantastic document of the post Barrett era before these albums and of course Barrett era Floyd is ace.

Although i find it hard to forgive him for his ego, which saw an end to the best band that Earth has ever produced, you can't deny he was a huge part of the engine of Pink Floyd when you see it executed like that.

The whole was exponentially greater than the sum of its parts. Roger's problem was that he would never be seen as a Syd Barrett style prodigal genius, despite being one in his own right.

A comment above reminded me that a friend of mine had tickets to the reunion they did for Live8, but they never used them. They told me a week after when i brought it up and said i could have had the tickets if i wanted. Wanker knew i was a huge Pink Floyd fan. We haven't spoken much since.

Barrett Brown was finally released from custody today.

63 months!

Not one torturer, not one wiretapper, not one CEO of a major bank in jail, none. But Barrett Brown gets 63 fucking months.

Meanwhile, the EU's counter-terrorism coordinator threw down the gauntlet, wants backdoors from all tech companies running the communications networks.

Pink Floyd's Earliest Appearance Post Syd Barrett has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach on that post.

Barrett Brown (Stratfor leak) was put into solitary confinement: http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2014/07/01/the-barrett-brown-review-of-arts-and-letters-and-jail-a-visit-to-the-hole/

My problem with movie guns is the "hand cannon" sound. Like in all the Dirty Harry movies. Every pistol shot seems to sound like a 50cal Barrett sniper rifle in a sewer pipe.

As cool sounding as it is wrong.

With the exception of most of the early stuff with Syd Barrett, "Animals" was always my favorite Pink Floyd album. (Seriously, it just doesn't get any better than "Interstellar Overdrive".)

*promote

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Los Angeles, Comedy, Agent, Industry, Hate, California, Suzi Barrett' to 'Los Angeles, Comedy, Agent, Industry, Hate, Fucking, Shit, California, Suzi Barrett' - edited by Ornthoron

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Pink Floyd - Syd Barrett Story (BBC Documentary). Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

I am a CPA with 38 years experience.

I am wearing a man's flannel shirt and hiking boots and no makeup, with my hair pulled back with a rhinestone covered barrette, sitting here at work. (I'm not lesbian, I'm just comfortable in the cold Pacific NW, in a kooky town that lets you be comfortable without judgment.)

There is NO WAY he could guess what I do for a living.

I have no paper cuts at present. That might give me away.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Trancecoach. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.