bmags

I think it was dominik who made the point previously that vaughn maybe one of those players that is advanced now (and good), but the lack of athleticism and positional versatility means he could hit a ceiling that others catch up to and surpass.

CBS thinks I would rather watch a 9-6 browns ravens game than watch Patrick Mahomes just because it’s a blowout. They are wrong.

Absolutely embarrassing.

Term limits is only thing that makes sense to me for revamping SCOTUS though, not a fan of making it a vote (I hate local judge races)

Exactly, campaign finance reform, voting rights, parts of healthcare law: all prevented by scotus in last decade

I’m not sure your second paragraph sounds that bad, it’s the filibuster that obscures it. if from here on, Congress was straight majority rule, that seems fine, and if a party gets majority in all three (exec, house, senate) they should be able to implement big or whatever changes. The issue is institutional rules have been changed last decade. So a party 8 years with a president was allowed virtually no judges for 6 of them, then two years in the new party overturns all of those restrictions and puts in hundreds, that’s not something I just shrug at. I want to balance that, as aggressively. But is Congress worse off without filibuster and without hastert rule applied by each speaker? I have hard time seeing that it is moving forward. Seems stronger. edit: said three branches, meant house/sen/prez

The rules were already changed.

It would amend the constitution, if they amend the constitution and it passes across states they could easily apply to existing judges.

The thing is, when you push for extreme changes seriously (like the sitting president has no right to appoint a supreme court justice), you get some change closer to what you want.

Between burge dying, a mostly white jury now convicting Van Dyke, and the consent decree, I am really hoping the seeds of real change are put in place.

If we are to do a pre-mortem, a "if this fails why did it fail", I still scream from the rooftops it was the failure in 15 or 16 to do a monster INTL FA class that broke the rules and brought in quantity. I hope Robert succeeds, I like that they signed him, but it's hard for me to believe this farm wouldn't be so much more improved had they signed a class with like 8 of the top 30 in 15 or 16.

She's not stupid. She's very conservative, but plays this role to get more of what she wants. She feigns that she is heterodox on something like womens issues, but she doesn't. And she knows that you aren't punished for being wrong anymore.

This seems right to me, and I believe justice was served. I hope the officers that lied see punishment as well.

Definitely 2015.

That makes sense. I probably oversimplify in my head 1st being premeditated and 2nd being not.

Flake is a yes.

Counterpoint: I don't like going to bed at 11:30

That's interesting. wider range (lower floor higher ceiling of sentencing)?

I thought the only institutional removals were prison, mental institution, armed forces, 65+?

well the full 37% wouldn't be on government dime. Some amount of early retirees and stay at home parents. One of the big "structural" things we've seen is those claiming disability has declined over the last 4 years.

Probably in minority but I'd rather every bears game be at noon on sunday.

murkowski just voted against cloture. Flake voted yes, collins yes. Collins said her final vote will be announced at 3pm.

It's important to note that these alternate jurors were not privvy to any of the actual jury deliberation. Still interesting.

There are a whole bunch of people still with national economic decision making power who have never admitted they were wrong, or worse, even updated their thinking based on overwhelming evidence that they were wrong.

The implications of Kavanaugh are hugely important, among other things to the institutional authority of the supreme court. Focusing on it isn't a distraction. It may very well help GOP electorally and fire up their base. I, obviously, want to see a democratic senate and house this fall. After the last decade, I disagree with notion of ceding the floor to heated fights like this helps democrats. When they have saw a fight motivate republicans, they have tried to mute it instead of following through at the expense of how their own voters saw the situation. And it leaves institutional power vulnerable to 2016 like primaries (and it should). What is the point of voting that group into power if they only fight for values when they are on favorable grounds? In 2002, many democrats voted for the Iraq CR because they didn't want that electoral fight and wanted to focus on healthcare. It was motivating for gop base and not as favorable for them as healthcare. Some good it did them, the US and the world.