Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 05:34 PM) I actually agree to a certain extent that decisions should be based on specific facts and less on overarching broad decisions. But thats why the Michael H case is so sick, the child lived with Michael for a portion of her first 3 years of life, Michael petitioned for parental rights within 1 year of her birth, the guardian ad litem (attorney appointed for the child), filed a petition asking the state to grant rights to BOTH fathers. Yet the state and federal court said no, that just merely being married trumps everything else. Thats wrong. I get what you're saying and I agree to certain extent. But think about it from the non-biological father's point of view. You think that's your kid and you think that way for a year and then a stranger that knocked up your wife wants visiting rights. I'd be a little upset too. I can see both sides to that case.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2013 -> 07:29 AM) Waste! Fraud! Abuse! Zomg! We put it off for a couple of years!!! THE END OF THE EARTH IS NEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 05:26 PM) 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? I don't really view that as being inconsistent. If you father a child, you should be responsible for it, regardless of how involved you are. If you're the biological father but aren't involved, your parental rights should be considered waived. If that guy in the SC case wanted to be involved immediately, then I agree the decision is wrong. But it seemed to me they were discussing the case in context with the California law so maybe it's a little more narrowed than you're letting on.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 27, 2013 -> 09:05 AM) I like Michigan to match up well with Kansas. Not many guys have the ability to nuetralize Withy, the Wolverines have two. Plus UM might be more athletic than the Jayhawks. It should be a good one. Michigan just has to defend better than they have and they should win it. Who?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 05:02 PM) 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. 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?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 01:52 PM) If Illinois was more consistent over the last 10 years... But they had 2 really good years and then... f***ing Bruce Weber. Sigh.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 02:26 PM) To address standing and whether or not citizens can flood the court with legal challenges a state would normally handle. An appellate court can rule on that issue.

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 Jenks's statement that the law is clear-cut always either constitutional or unconstitutional. 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 02:13 PM) Why can't he be both? Broken clock and all that. edit he's not the worst ever, just the worst in my lifetime. edit2: e.g. when he tries to support Cooper immediately after the last section I quoted I look forward to his dissent in the DOMA case including "homosexual agenda!" like his Lawrence dissent did. I guess I don't see the problem with what he said.

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. See, this is the common misconception of what SCOTUS does. They don't decide "is gay marriage acceptable." That's what you all want them to decide, but they don't. Their job is to look at a particular law, in a particular context, and decide if it's constitutional. We just revisited the whole affirmative action decision and in the Michigan law school case O'Connor says i'm deciding this is constitutional right now, but hopefully in 25 years it won't be. It was entirely dependent on the context. Gov't providing minority contracts at some point will become unconstitutional even though they're constitutional right now. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 01:49 PM) His writing style is still better suited to talk radio or editorials but I'm not going to say he's wrong when he's solidly correct here. I'd prefer Kagan's privacy grounds over Scalia's property grounds but it's still a good ruling and a good result. Then let's stop with the outlandish "he's the worst Justice ever" crap, huh?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 02:05 PM) Fundamentally disagree, just so that is said. 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 01:34 PM) Reading Volokh blog comments, it appears that it could be in reference to the pro-Prop 8 side's arguments that rely on social science e.g. "what's best for the children." edit: also that they took this case primarily to settle the standing issue anyway where a state government declines to defend a ballot initiative's legality. There was a ruling released today that found that you can't bring a drug dog onto someone's porch and then search the home if the dog alerts. Scalia with a good opinion and Kagan with a (better) concurrence. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-564_jifl.pdf Blasphemy!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 10:59 AM) The State of California is refusing to defend Prop. 8 in the courts, so a group of private citizens is defending it instead. Sort of like the House wasting a bunch of money hiring a lawyer to defend DOMA. scotusblog has a summary of the oral arguments http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/the-prop...-oral-argument/ 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.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 10:26 AM) Looks like Collins to NU is very likely. Could be a big hire or a big bust. It'll come down to recruiting, as it always does.

In a blog post by an ESPN guy: Ouch.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 25, 2013 -> 01:40 PM) He missed nothing by passing up Illinois. UCLA is in a whole different world from Illinois. I wasn't trying to compare the programs. Shaka doesn't strike me as a guy that wants to lead a big time program like that. Illinois would have been a good fit because it's a 2nd tier program where you can still win consistently. UCLA your expectations are apparently more than an NC game appearance, a few final fours and a bunch of conference titles.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Mar 25, 2013 -> 11:51 AM) The only people that should care about how LeBron left are cavs fans. You don't need to be personally invested in him/the Cavs to see what an asshole the guy was. No one would have questioned him leaving the Cavs. It was the bulls*** parading around the country getting other teams to beg for him that pissed me off. Especially since it was all for show. It was all for attention. He knew where he was going before FA hit.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Mar 25, 2013 -> 12:10 PM) There are rumors they have a verbal acceptance from another couch now, so I bet that eliminates Shaka. I'm guessing Gregg Marshall or Flip Saunders. I think Flip would be a step in the wrong direction though. I bet Marshall could get a bigger gig than Minnesota.

Shaka lost out on deciding not to come to Illinois and the Big Ten. Though I read on a message board this week rumors that he was actually much closer to accepting the job than previously thought and his wife basically talked him out of it at the least minute. At this point just be content where you're at, making the tournament and being a cinderella favorite every year. I mean, is the extra million really worth the added pressure of having to win at a program like UCLA? Multiple final fours and conference titles wasn't enough for that delusional fan base.

Not really a surprise, he was average at best.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 25, 2013 -> 11:27 AM) but where do you draw the line? Then you have to review all fouls because why is a charge more important than a hack? Craft was beaten down on his last second shot against Michigan and that cost them the game. Is that reviewable? No, judgment fouls should not be reviewable, but blocks/charges that depend on where the guys foot is relative to the line should be, just like out-of-bounds calls should be. Those are clear cut, no judgment required calls.

Illinois started college football replay after getting screwed against Michigan. Perhaps they'll get the rule changed for reviewing calls in basketball too. At the end of the day I can't blame that one blown call for the loss, but there's no good reason why we can't make sure the call is right at one of the most important points of the game. Same with the Craft block/charge.

QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 24, 2013 -> 10:28 PM) Biggest issue, in my opinion, is that you're losing 3 players who spread the court very well and bringing in a lot of guys more known for their mid-range game. Not quite sure where the perimeter scoring will come from them the next few years. It'll be nice having guys with more game. And remember DJ was thought of that way too and he ended up being a 3 point specialist. Next year might be rough but i think the future is bright.

Dj had a terrible game. If hes average they win