Soxbadger

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 05:23 PM) I could see problems if you were to just flat out declare that biological rights trump all others. What if the biological father showed up 10 years down the line? Is that really fair? Would that trump the married fathers' rights? Not trump, but the biological father has to have rights. Its his child. Unless we are going to say that biological fathers have no obligations. It cant be both ways, the biological father either has rights and obligations, or the biological father has no rights and no obligations. Reverse the scenario. If 10 years after a child is born, the mother then wants child support, she would be entitled to it right? So why cant the father 10 years later say he wants to be part of his child's life?

Scalia is kind of a dick when it comes to family stuff. This is by far one of the worst opinions of all time: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftri...w/michaelh.html http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/family-...l-h-v-gerald-d/ Basically the natural father lost rights to another man who was married, because Scalia recognizes marriage over actually being the father. Just hilarious. (edit) The case name is Michael H. v. Gerald D 504 U.S. 905 (edit 2) And the reason I bring it up, is a lot of the argument was based on "history" and how historically the person married to the mother was considered the father. Even though today we can scientifically test who the father is. Even worse, is that a man who is not married, but actually the father can be forced to pay child support, but yet the Supreme Court does not recognize that he should have father rights. Nonsense.

My answer would be that it was unconstitutional in 1776, just that we were a socially backwards society that did not truly understand equality and thus were incapable of making rational laws/decisions. Even though the constitution did not say blacks were equal in 1776, they were. Just like women were equal in 1776. The law does not always reflect the truth. The law can be corrupted, the law can be wrong.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 04:01 PM) I checked that one, but could only figure out how to look at individual previous seasons, not the entire history. yeah i found that out too haha

Does this site work for you? http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/ They are usually the best for pro sports

You dont need to be a lawyer to understand why its unfair to make the side being oppressed prove that they are equal, as opposed to having those who want to oppress prove that the oppression is necessary. If science is not conclusive, then they should have equal rights.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 02:23 PM) Well that's true. I guess I was assuming we're talking about the here and now. For Kennedy to say it's too early to decide is sort of a copout. Based on what we know now he can decide if it's constitutional or not. He's kicking the can down the road, which makes me wonder why they decided to hear the case at all. Yep, not sure why Balta isnt seeing this. Kennedy is making no ruling, hes simply sticking his head in the sand and hoping someone else will do the dirty work. We cant decide this today, we cant be sure what will happen. Well no one is ever sure of the future, we can only go based on the facts we currently have, and based on those facts you need to decide whether its constitutional or not. If those facts change, the ruling can change. Not sure why these are mutually exclusive positions.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 02:22 PM) This statement is exactly the opposite of what you agreed with when Jenks stated "I get what Kennedy is saying, but that "maybe it's not the right time" crap is exactly why people hate activist judges. Timing shouldn't matter in these decisions." You said "Yep" to that post, agreeing that time shouldn't matter, and here just made a (Correct, IMO) case for why timing matters. Its not the exact opposite. Read the words. Its not the "right time" means that you think there is something wrong, but for whatever reason you are afraid to do it. Im saying that is nonsense, if you believe slavery is wrong in 1820, you should stop slavery in 1820, not say that "society isnt ready, but maybe in 10 years" thats bulls*** nonsense. That is quite different than saying today "Gay marriage is okay" and then 20 years from now finding concrete evidence that shows gay marriage causes kids to die at 13. Then you change your mind. Completely and entirely different. Not sure how you cant see that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 02:20 PM) That's exactly why I disagreed...because his original statement was either that the law was constitutional or it wasn't. You've just explained how a law can be constitutional at one time and, because the judgment of society changes, unconstitutional another time. That is exactly why I fundamentally disagreed with his and MrG's statement that the law is clear-cut always either constitutional or unconstitutional. You are misinterpreting my statement then. It is either constitutional at that minute or it is not constitutional at that minute. It should not matter what you think will happen 10 years in the future, that is speculation and has no place in the ruling. What matters is what is happening today.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 02:12 PM) So wait...either it's constitutional or it's not...laws and interpretations are immutable...but if we're wrong we can fix that in 10 years by reinterpreting things. The law is always evolving. Its like science. Just because yesterday we thought that the Earth was the center of the universe, doesnt mean we always have to think that until the end of time. While the preference is stare decisis, that is just preference.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 02:05 PM) Fundamentally disagree, just so that is said. Disagree, either slavery was okay or it wasnt okay. I dont think there is any other way about that. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 02:09 PM) Constitutionality of a particular law really shouldn't be a "maybe" situation. Either prop 8 is constitutional or it's not. Whether or not it's too soon to tell isn't really a good excuse to not decide. If the only defense here is that studies might show kids grow up worse with gay parents, but the science is inconclusive or not fully developed, the law should be upheld. There's no reason not to at this particular time. If in 10 years the science changes and you want to use that defense, bring another lawsuit. Completely agree. I dont think rights should be withheld until we can prove equality. I dont think it would have been fair to say that black people were not going to be equal to whites, unless it could be scientifically proven, same with women. That to me is backwards.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 01:18 PM) I get what Kennedy is saying, but that "maybe it's not the right time" crap is exactly why people hate activist judges. Timing shouldn't matter in these decisions. Yep, its either wrong or its right. Im not sure what science has to do with it. Straight couples can be s***ty disgusting parents, I assume gay couples can be as well. But you dont punish everyone, simply because a few people are terrible humans.

If Illinois was more consistent over the last 10 years... But they had 2 really good years and then...

Its just hard to convince people that X team is going to be a Big 10 contender, when OSU, MSU and Wisconsin have been there every year for the last what 10 years? You add in Michigan and Indiana, and its just pretty brutal to get to the top. Not saying Iowa wont, just that its a steep hill to climb to go from the middle to the top

http://www.emergenc.com/ That is my suggestion.

So who is the 5th that wont go for it, thats the real question. I was thinking Roberts was going to, because he wants to be justice that will be remembered.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 25, 2013 -> 02:48 PM) He also knows that Rick told him initially to take Michonne to the governor and trade her over. It could be interpreted badly by Darryl, especially given at how upset he is. Not exactly. Rick said that was going to be the plan, but Meryl took it upon himself to actually take Michonne. Pretty sure they foreshadowed the reason why Darryl will blame the Governor, because the Governor turned Meryl into a bad guy murderer, so its easy to argue Meryl was just a victim of the Governor's madness, as long as you blame the Governor. If you blame Rick, then you are basically admitting that Meryl was a murderer, bad guy.

If Shaka is "Smart" he goes to UCLA and never looks back. He should want no part of the Big10 and having to recruit against top coaches every year.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Mar 23, 2013 -> 02:23 PM) No s***, but that one game doesn't necessarily mean the same thing would happen every time. Or do you think Florida Golf Coast would kick the s*** out of Georgetown if it were a 7-game series? No because Georgetown has superior talent and doesnt have a system that is prone to being beaten by better athletes. VCU on the other hand has inferior talent to Michigan and runs a system that is supposed to take advantage of superior athleticism. It would behoove VCU to learn how to play grind out games, so when they face a team like Michigan they can slow it down and frustrate them.

Pregame was fine, half time I really let them down.

If they try and run against Michigan they are going to get blown out more times than not. Now maybe some of those games are 10, 15, 20. But that was one of the easiest games to pick in the tournament.

Sorry guys, Wisconsin just sucked

lol That game was fun

Ive never seen soccer in snow like that.

Yeah I cancelled 2 of the tickets. Sucks for them but I told them in advance to tell me, and they waited until the last second.