NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 01:47 PM) I don't think Santiago is going to be a starter long-term, so I don't mind him being moved to the big league bullpen. He's throwing a screwball, so it's more of a "Tricky" pitch guys don't see a lot...if they have to go against him 3 times in a game, that pitch will lose some of its potency. I tend to agree. And Infante hasn't really looked that hot in the past year or so. There are guys who will be in the Charlotte pen this year that I'd prefer over him for a call-up.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 12:37 PM) Yeah, there's an article on whitesox.com that says that. I could be wrong, but it looks like Charlotte will have the following rotation: Dylan Axelrod Terry Doyle Charlie Leesman Doug Davis Deunte Heath The only other guy that could be a possibility is Donnie Veal and I don't see that happening. Honestly, the only logical reason Castro is starting in AA is to gain some confidence at a pitcher-friendly park. There is simply not enough to block him from going to Charlotte fairly quickly. And of that crowd... Axelrod is the only one I think has a legit shot to make it as a stater. Leesman, I would have said a year or two ago, but he just doesn't seem to have it anymore. Doyle maybe has a shot as a reliever. Davis and Heath are filler. Molina and Castro will likely be up pretty quick to AAA.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 11:57 AM) Those are the actual facts of this case. The leash law detention was brought up in one of the briefs and mentioned in the dissent. These jails have mandatory strip searches for anyone processed in. please read the ruling before accusing me of going over the top. Show me where or how someone who violated a leash law goes to jail. Show me how someone goes to jail who hasn't been either convicted or charged with a crime - and therefore has no reasonable suspicion attached. You are not stating the actual facts of the case, you are stringing together some hypothetical scenarios, interlaced with a broadness that this ruling does not take on, to paint a picture of a police state. I am saying you are factually wrong.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 11:33 AM) There's something hilarious about talking about freedom while defending the right of the police state to have mandatory strip searches if you're detained for any reason. This is not prison, these are not people convicted of crimes. They may have done nothing wrong but may still be subjected to strip searches without any reason for suspicion. If your daughter was detained for violating a leash law, would you be perfectly accepting of her being strip searched? You have gone so far over the top now. Mandatory strip searches if you are detained for any reason? False on its face. No reason for suspicion? False. Detained for leash law and going to jail? False.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:23 AM) Technical difficulties. I didn't want to assume.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:21 AM) I know. And I keep asking "what power is this, and where is it in Massachusetts' constitution?" You keep answering a question I'm not asking. Where is this enumerated in Mass's constitution? No one here may know this, but I was hoping maybe someone had read an article recently that discussed this. I would be surprised to learn if this was an explicitly enumerated power. It doesn't have to be. As Soxbadger said, and I've said, and others have said, the states have any powers they want to take that do not violate federal laws or the federal Constitution. The parameters of execution are delineated in their state constitutions. Seriously, you are just not getting this, and I can't keep discussing it, just to tell you the same thing five times in five different ways of wording it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:07 AM) No one is saying that, not me nor the straw man. You're still talking past the point. States do not have unlimited rights. States have the rights their Constitutions, and by proxy the federal government, grant to them. This has been said a zillion times, what are you missing here? The states' rights are limited only by federally enumerated powers, and the state's constitutional law. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:07 AM) It's a pretty simple question. What sort of power is "compelling commerce"? Compelling commerce.

QUOTE (elrock @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 09:50 AM) I am ready for the season to begin. Go forth and do battle Chisox! Welcome to the board! Death to the opponent!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:02 AM) For the minor offense of an unpaid fine, which it turns out was actually paid. So, despite the fact that he was actually wrongly arrested and that the jailers had no reason to suspect he presented any danger, you're still ok with him being strip searched? Yes I am. What I am not OK with is that the state f***ed up by not showing he paid the fines. That is who he should be suing - the people who caused the mess. The rule for searching, if the jail feels it is necessary for security of themselves and inmates, I am OK with. And there is a major difference between police and jailers, in terms of legal parameters.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 10:00 AM) It explicitly says in the US Constitution that congress CANNOT. This is not a regulation of commerce, it's a creation of commerce. Actually, it is neither. Regulation of is OK (like saying, insurers can't post pictures of their patients or something), and even creation of (like creating an insurance pool market that people can choose to participate in). This is the forced private commerce (you HAVE to buy a product).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 09:57 AM) But if it's just commerce regulation, intra- or inter-, then it'd be Federally Constitutional since the Federal government can regulate interstate commerce and health insurance qualifies (at least no one is making an argument to the contrary that I've seen, and it certainly didn't seem to be a central element of Clement's arguments). If it is ok for states but not ok for Feds, it must be some other power being exercised. You are talking in circles. The fact that the federal government can regulate interstate commerce, does not mean that it can do ANYTHING IT WANTS in the field of commerce. In fact, I am sure the court would find that the federal government can indeed regulate health insurance. No one is even debating that, except you and the straw man. What they are debating - and what you keep ignoring, over and over and over again - is if that power includes compulsion to buy a consumer product.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 09:54 AM) Litigation for what? Not 4th and 14th amendment violations. It's not that every police department will do this, it's that they can. I believe you should have a Constitutionally protected right to privacy from being strip searched after being detained for any offense, no matter how minor. This is now more clear to me - this was not a police department doing the searching. It was a county sherriff's facility - a jail. Therefore, no, the court finding does NOT allow for police to strip search just anyone. In fact, it doesn't really establish precedent for that scenario it all, it avoids it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 09:52 AM) this is the opening paragraph of the opinion: I'm not OK with this being an acceptable policy for police. It's a huge invasion of privacy. Read it more carefully. It referred to the COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, then the county jail proper. Neither of those are police lockups. They are prisons. These searches occurred after he was handed over the county jail systems. Which now helps aid a part of the picture that was made unclear in the articles and exerpts I read - which made it seem that the police strip-searched him. They did not. I am now OK with this court finding, and the story makes more sense to me as a whole. The guy was searched twice because he was in jail twice.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 09:50 AM) What power does a mandate exercise? That's the question I'm asking. If it isn't Federally Constitutional, it isn't the power to regulate interstate commerce or N&P to do so. States can definitely regulate commerce - intrastate, and in some cases even interstate, unless the federal government chooses to intercede. If a state mandates its own citizens to buy a product, that is not interstate commerce.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 09:46 AM) If there's no legal reason not to do so, then there's little to no reason not to strip search everyone. If you have a 0.0001% chance of actually preventing a serious problem if you do a strip search, and 0 chance of anything bad happening if you do so, and no additional costs incurred during the process, then the logic says to make it standard procedure. Ridiculous. You think that police departments are going to WANT to strip and cavity search everyone they detain? You cannot really think that would be the case, it makes no sense at all. Aside from the fact that no one wants to do that anyway, the reality is also that it is time-consuming, and opens you up to litigation (and yes, even with this case in place, litigation can still occur). Your paranoia here has clouded any sense of logic.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 09:34 AM) The court's opinion states that this happens to every incoming detainee at the two jails regardless of offense. Yes, there's a security issue, but that needs to be balanced against other concerns. If there's a good reason to search a particular person based on the nature of the arrest and/or previous history, by all means. But this ruling makes it ok for the police to strip search anyone. This measure goes way, way too far in my opinion. It's not that everyone arrested will be strip searched, it's that they can be for no reason at all and they have no recourse. First, it doesn't say that "this happens to every incoming detainee at the two jails", unless I misread it (I did not read every opinion on the case, I only read articles quoting it). Because that would be factually false. I am sure the police department does not strip search everyone they detain. well, pretty sure anyway. Second, your last line basically is saying, they are leaving it to police policy. And I am OK with that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 09:28 AM) They held a preliminary vote on Friday. It takes months to research and write the opinions and determine if they are going to write a separate dissent or concurrence. I'm asking what power the state has that the Federal government doesn't that justifies the mandate. State power is still governed by their own constitutions. As for the vote, I always had the impression that was not really a vote, more of an airing of initial positions, before they all go heads-down to study. This article does make it seem more formal than that, so I am a bit surprised. About your last line, your question doesn't really make any sense. The states have whatever power they want, outside of those enumerated to the federation in the Constitution and existing federal law. Which you then answer with your last sentence - their own constitutions. Which is what I said.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 09:28 AM) Right, and from reading a single story on the situation, it seems way out of line to me...but we weren't actually there. I know police don't like strip searching people, and when they do it they usually have a pretty good reason for it. So, I have to wonder if anything was said/done to prompt it...which of course, we will never know. Definitely possible. Though, with a case that went this far, if there were other important factors that might cause such a search, you'd think we'd know about it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 09:24 AM) But this guy who was arrested for an unpaid fine (incorrectly or not) can be strip-searched and it's not an unreasonable search. That's pretty terrible. It does disturb me a bit, but more from a police procedure point of view. The prison search is done to EVERYONE, and I get that. but the police strip search, just to hold him, seems out of line to me. In that situation, the cops can and should use some judgment. They clearly are not strip searching everyone they arrest, that just doesn't happen. So it seems odd they chose this guy.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 09:21 AM) It was the fault of the state, etc...who knows. But on the computer it read he had an outstanding warrant. No cop in existence is going to say oh look, an obscure receipt, I guess I'll just ignore this warrant because it shouldn't exist. He can't assume to know that. The person in question should be pissed off at the state that never removed his warrant, not the cop that didn't believe some receipt...I mean, that's just ridiculous. Have to agree here, no matter how unfortunate the situation was. Cops cannot pick and choose warrants to service in this way, they just can't do that. You would see a lot more abuse and bias and problems if they did. This guy should be suing the state for the cause of the whole thing - the paperwork glitch.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 08:34 AM) My guess is word got leaked that the initial vote did not go well for the Administration. You are joking, right? There is no "initial" vote, as I understand it. This isn't like a polling system of that type. It will take weeks or months before these justices truly solidify their positions. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 08:37 AM) A separate thought: what powers do the states possess that make the mandate ok that the federal government doesn't possess? 1. The federal government's powers are limited to those enumerated, per the Constitution. All OTHER powers, as they see fit to exercise, fall to the states, and down the line. 2. Which leads us to... QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 3, 2012 -> 08:42 AM) Probably depends on Mass.'s constitution. Exactly. The state's constitution is the test here.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 11:29 PM) Thoughts... Could Kevin Dubler be headed for B'ham? Where is Juan Silverio? Likely for B'ham, four guys, Seth Loman, Corey Smith, Andy Wilkins and Jon Gilmore, for three positions, 1B, 3B and DH. Who backs up Phegley in Charlotte? Espino or Gimenez? And, does Dubler back up the one who winds up in B'ham? Dubler could easily just be gone, but if he's still around, he will likely back up in B-Ham. Silverio is likely in AA, since he finished in High A last year and the org still seems to like him.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 04:49 PM) The claim seems to be he's putting the suffix -nik (like beatnik or peacenik) on the end of government. "Anti-war government-nik". Never heard that term used before, but it's plausible. It sure did sound more "nik" than "nig" to me. Was it meant that way, or did he catch himself? Hard to tell.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 02:48 PM) It has to do with whether or not a mandate suddenly changes a citizen's relationship to his or her government. When the state exercised this novel power (the state had not acted this way before, much as the federal government hadn't), did the relationship change with its citizens? It does not appear so, but this is simply something to weight against Kennedy's concerns. It was not a declaration that "no, it wouldn't change" and wasn't a complete dismissal of the idea. In fact, in the very next sentence, he beings to address Kennedy's concern from a different angle. Anyway, it's a minor part of a fairly lengthy article and not central to his arguments. And, again, this is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. State and Federal powers are just not comprarable enough for this to be a comparison useful in any way.

I thought maybe this was a leftover April Fool's link. But that was actually a damn good little video.