Yeah... what if we got rid of the public place requirement in that case, would that make it any better?
It has to be a public place so it can't be easily covered up. And Scalia would be good, too. I just couldn't remember his name. And remembering the Thomas approval hearings, he seemed like a more likely candidate for the scenario.
vw -- I'm not positive, but:
a) Nobody has veto power. The other votes combined are greater than 30, so if 30's against something it can still pass. Nobody in that set can singlehandedly prevent something from passing.
b) If I understand this correctly, the quota is 2. 30 and 29, 30 and 28, and 29 and 28 are all pairs that can decide the result.
c) 13 is a dummy. No matter what other combination of votes occurs, what 13 does won't change the outcome.
STOP IT.
Edit: Not Strega, the other stuff. Carry on with the voting math, by all means.
There's no stopping math.
Hee. I'm just all giddy and stuff. I just know I am going to have a giggle attack in the middle of yoga class tonight. But the class will understand.
If only Strega were here when we had the preferential voting kerfuffle of aught-foo.
Math has a liberal bias.
And that, Mr. Rove, is the REAL math!