farmteam

QUOTE (He_Gawn @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 08:53 PM) I think with the serious influx of athleticism, the defense will be a major, major upgrade. The offense was already probably the best in the country, definitely top 3. As the as the team chemistry continues to be this good, they should find themselves in it to the end. Crean has done a hell of a job. No one expected this, especially this year. Big Ten...probably. Country? Kentucky was a better offensive team than us.

Yay! I get to make a second departmentalism comment in a week! But that doesn't REALLY apply here for two reasons: 1)The power concerned isn't an Executive Power and 2)Departmentalism tends to be favored by conservatives. EDIT: I'm referring to the judges asking the Justice Dept to answer whether the president believes in the legitimacy of judicial review.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:31 PM) Going to be fascinating to see how Crean does with a team that actually has expectations. I've been wondering about this as well.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:49 AM) I thought it was a good decision. The outcome was good or the reasoning was good? Or both? (Honest, not loaded question. I haven't read the case yet, though I should, and have no opinion on it)

Apparently Mikel Leshoure was caught chewing weed in a traffic stop, his second marijuana possession bust in a month. Chewing it? Seriously? At least get the rest off your shirt, dude. Kind of defeats the purpose.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 09:16 PM) I really hope Calipari goes to the Knicks now. Kentucky getting so many of the top prospects has killed the tournament the last few years. Are there rumors he might head there?

I think Davis is the most likable player Calipari has had in college, at least to me. He seems like a genuinely good kid. I'm not counting Rose because I didn't like him til he was on the Bulls. I didn't NOT like him before that, just didn't have an opinion.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 07:59 PM) That doesn't mean he couldn't go to DePaul. Imagine what kind of re-birth Parker would give that place, which is still the sleeping giant among all college basketball teams. Especially if they can get an arena in the city, like that article a few pages back mentioned. Obviously it wouldn't be around by the time Parker got there, but the two of them happening at roughly the same time would be a huge deal.

Apparently IU is the 3rd most valuable college basketball program. And Northwestern is 20th? I don't put too much stock in these things, but they're fun to look at.

I think my parents switched to a debit card, but only recently. Took them long enough! I only write checks for rent, and the occasional personal debt (that's more than like $20). All bills I do through Chase online bill pay; I could do the rent check on that too, but since there's an office in my building, it's easier to just drop it off there.

Apologies if this was posted somewhere else: http://newsone.com/newsone-original/boycew...PJo79p6NWOn2i9g I mean, it certainly sounds like he's about to say it, but my listening was obviously biased by the fact that I had read the article on it first.

QUOTE (flavum @ Apr 1, 2012 -> 10:40 AM) Somebody watch The Killing so I don't have to and let me know if I should give it a second try. I'll watch it in spite of myself, since they pissed me off last season. At worst it ends up taking up space on my DVR.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 05:36 PM) This is the short definition of the Citizens United decision. Fun Fact -- Citizen United's lead counsel was speaking at a symposium at my school today (I had a test and didn't go, though).

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 05:07 PM) They can do things they've never done if they take the LEGAL STEPS TO DO SO. They have to stay within their RIGHTS. This is *POSSIBLY/MAYBE* out of their scope of power, which is why it's being discussed. I know you don't want to accept that...but it doesn't really matter. If what they did wasn't grey area or questionable, it wouldn't be being questioned. The thing that bothers me is that when you take Raich as precedent, there is no debate. None. There is no way that the same court that wrote the Raich opinion can say the health care bill is unconstitutional under the commerce clause...unless you change the framework you make the argument in, which is what the challengers have successfully done. And as I mentioned earlier, I think the argument to change that framework was pretty tenuous. Apparently 5 of the justices disagree with me. Bastards! That said, I still think Raich was a bad opinion, because they kinda ignored the difference between the illegal weed market and the legal medicinal market, but I digress.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:38 PM) But it's not the Court's role to determine policy for the country. It's their job to interpret the law and decide its constitutionality. This is a legislative problem, not a judicial one. I'm really tempted to start a departmentalism debate in the Buster, that would go over well....

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:33 PM) Look I drink beer too! Dude, O'Doul's doesn't count.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 12:16 PM) I made it half of the first page before laughing at how ridiculous that is. That guy needs to grow a pair of balls. Jesus. When did being a man become a bad thing? Once God took the rib away.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 12:26 PM) See my post above yours. While it's an extreme and simplified example...it's an example that highlights that just because both means lead to the same end, it doesn't necessarily mean they're both allowed and/or legal. True. However, some might say that if X is constitutional, and if Y accomplishes the same thing as X, then there is the presumption that Y is also constitutional. Your hypo doesn't rebut that presumption; it just says "well, in some cases that isn't true." It would instead have to show that Y is specifically unconstitutional. That's just an argument that could be made, but I actually agree with you on this specific point. Since the federal government is a system of enumerated powers, there is no presumption of constitutionality; you always have to show why something IS constitutional, not why it is not constitutional.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 12:17 PM) Because one is grey area unconstitutional (currently being discussed in the supreme court), and one is not? I'm guessing his underlying question is then, why is the first one "grey area unconstitutional" if they do the same thing

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 11:17 AM) Also, let's not forget they haven't passed judgement yet. Who knows what they will end up doing...but IMO, that part of the way they choose to do things is unconstitutional but that's not up to me to decide. Er, just to clarify -- when you say "the way they choose to do things" are you talking about how Congress passed the bill, or how the Court adjudicates it?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 10:36 AM) I'm a huge fan of the liberals on this board arguing that the Court should ignore the text of a bill and decide its constitutionality based on the "oh come on, we all know what they MEANT to do" standard. Speaking generally, I give greatest weight to the text of a bill. But it can be be helpful to look at legislative intent, as long as you're looking solely at the intent of the FINAL product. Ie, I don't like using legislative intent to say "This what we were trying to do!" when, in fact, if they had done that, others wouldn't have voted for it and it wouldn't have been passed at all.

I'm convinced Balta is employed by UT to solely post on Soxtalk.

How was Chasson Randle this year for Stanford? I saw he went 14/3/2 and 43.4% from downtown, but did anyone see many of their games?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 01:47 PM) Justice Thomas, in contrast, I don't believe has asked a question from the bench in six years. Something like that. One of my professors were at oral arguments last week (not sure which case), and he said that within two minutes of starting, Thomas was leaning back in his chair and looked asleep.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 12:37 PM) I'm pretty sure Brian Daubach was in CF for at least one game the year he was with us. This made me go look at Brian Daubach's wikipedia page, which led to me finding out there used to be a team in the Can-Am league called the American Defenders of New Hampshire. Way better than Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.