Jenksismyhero

why are we shooting a three? just drive! ugh...

thoughts after three quarters: Rondo is the biggest punk in the league. I want someone to lay him out, for the good of the game. Perkins and that whiny b**** face is also getting old. Allen is ridiculous. The majority of his shots not only go in, but they go in without hitting the rim. I loved the comparison with Rose and Parker - if only Rose can get a consistent jump shot, he'll go from good to f'n awesome (agree on whoever said his defense sucks though...that's something he can work on). Noah and Thomas need to slow the freak down, calm down, and play basketball. I love the energy, but damn sometimes they make the dumbest mistakes (stupid passes, horrible fouls, etc. Gordon has taken approximately 19 terrible shots this game. Great if he's hitting his shots (and open), terrible when he's not. Bulls should be up at least 15 in this game. Basically it's the same story this series - get a lead, get all excited, forget there's 30, 20, 10 minutes left, give up big lead. Rinse, repeat. Edit: Forgot to add that Hinrich is probably the best Bulls player the last 2-3 games (in the time he's played).

The ending of that game pretty much summed up why I hate NBA basketball - comes down to one guy on one guy, with the advantage always with the offensive player. Credit Pierce for hitting those shots, but where the fudge is the defense? Oh that's right, the NBA doesn't like defense. Honestly, the Bulls should have won the series tonight 4-1 but due to their inability to play ANY transition defense, and the TERRIBLE turnovers (always at THE worst time), they let Boston win 2 close games. And Ben Gordon. Ugh. I love the shots he hits, but the 10 he misses drive me nuts. I hope that in the next few years Rose somehow steals just a little bit of that "I have to take every shot in the game" mentality. I trust Gordon to hit a jump shot over Rose, but I trust Rose to be able to drive and hit a runner to win a game (which unfortunately he can't do without the ball). Also, I cannot believe they didn't call a flagrant against Rondo. If that exact play happened in the first quarter that's a flagrant, no doubt. But apparently a "playoff foul" allows you to deck a guy so long as you're within 5 feet of the ball. I seriously hope that in the next two games someone gets a chance to smack the piss out of Rondo (or KG...please god let it be KG) while trying to swat at the ball. And totally agree about Boston fans. I'd rather have my testicles cut off than be stuck in a bar full of Celtic/Red Sox/Bruins and/or Patriot fans during a game.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 09:32 AM) I don't think it breaks it at all. If SCOTUS gets a case where existing law (case or legislated) is not relevant or clear, they have to make a decision, which is de facto creation of law. They have no choice - they have to decide the case as it would best seem to fit into US legal system. And to do that, to interperet the spirit and core of US law when the specifics aren't there, it only makes sense to reference other common law countries to see how they handle it. The legislature could then later, legislate anything they'd like. So you think international law would help SCOTUS decide a case that best fits the US legal system? I don't see how that's possible. And btw, it is VERY rare that SCOTUS gets a case of first impression, unless we're talking about a new law, which is still rare. So i'm still not sure what types of cases she's talking about. I do know that this is a big topic of debate in the legal world, especially with constitutional scholars. In every major era of SCOTUS there has been a proponent of looking at other countries. It's especially true more recently because the Justices (some of them anyway) travel around the world on a fairly regular basis and speak with other high ranking judges.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 22, 2009 -> 09:18 AM) People keep missing two things here. First, no one, Ginsburg or otherwise, is saying we look at other laws when we already have related laws or jurisprudence in place that give us the answer. So no one is trying to use other laws to govern our nation. As you say, we have finite laws to work with, and they don't cover everything - so why on earth would you not take a look at what others have done, as a reference? Just like state courts look to other states' decisions for guidance, even though the laws of each state are slightly different. Second, I hope everyone realizes that the laws of this country, Constitution included, were guided in great part by finding the best in breed from other countries. Our laws are rooted in common law and other laws already present in other countries well before our laws existed. The US didn't invent the concept of law. So, our laws and court decisions are all influenced by foreign laws already anyway. States using other state decisions is a good point, but I still feel like that's within our society and therefore more appropriate. Yes our Constitution and laws were based on english law, but it's been 200 years and in a variety of these fringe, moral issues we have (as peoples) very different opinions on what is "right."

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Apr 21, 2009 -> 06:04 PM) Did you read the case I posted? From 1900? Did you see how many different countries' laws were referenced? So? One case doesn't prove your point. Dred Scott. How'd that work out?

QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 21, 2009 -> 04:10 PM) Good point, thank you for the reminder. Is there any value in seeing how others interpreted what the law requires? I think there is, but the problem is law A isn't the same in every country, nor is the intent of law A, nor the reason behind law A, etc. The judiciary's intent (or so it was in the beginning) wasn't to decide the "right" viewpoint, but instead to be sure that the "right" viewpoint in a given case conformed to the law. So it makes no sense, IMO, to view another country's decision of law A as holding any value here when the same foundational rules don't apply. I think Ginsburg (and many before her) want to justify ruling on what they think is "right" be bolstering their opinion with a global consensus. In a broad sense it seems like a wonderful idea to include international views on domestic issues, but that's not the job of the judiciary, and it certainly isn't a good thing for them to be using those views in "creating" law here.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 21, 2009 -> 02:10 PM) So we ignore any solutions that were not created here? That seems silly. It would be like Illinois ignoring something Wisconsin is doing. If there is a better solution somewhere, why not adopt it? A decision by A might not be applicable to B, but it may. How would we know if we remain ignorant of what A is doing? I'm thinking of issues from emerging technology. Something as simple as a fax machine or internet "signature" and are the documents "legal" if they are signed and transmitted. It would seem natural to me to look around and see how others, inside and outside the US, have handled it. The job of legislators is to create the "solutions." The judiciary merely interprets. That's the problem with basing a decision, in whole or in part, on international decisions - the judiciary decides (legislates) what it thinks works for the given situation, not what the law requires.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 21, 2009 -> 10:57 AM) Did you read the rest of the thread? Ginsburg, and us, are talking about the corner cases, where domestic judicial precedent isn't available or isn't clear. I don't think that really matters. Since the beginning of our relatively young judicial system, judges have been guided by the principles of the Constitution and subsequent legislation and precedent, not what other countries think. I just feel like judicial systems are so different, and that legal reasoning comes from totally different places depending on the social, political, and legal systems involved, that a decision in country A isn't really applicable to country B. And really most of these "corner cases" deal with moral issues - the death penalty, torture, rights of certain individuals, etc. The decisions in those cases should be rooted in our own society, not anothers.

I completely disagree with the position that SCOTUS should be using international law, in any way. Our entire system is designed around our own judicial precedent, not that of other countries.

North is the most annoying Chicago sports personality. Hands down. No question. I don't see any problem with Kaplan. I actually like him a lot. He made Chicago Tribune Live a daily watch for me. He's a Cubs homer, but he's shown nothing but love for the Sox.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 10:36 AM) Yeah, you're right about this. At the time I was a registered Democrat. After Kerry's horses*** campaign and seeing there were no real leaders in the Democratic party, I got disgusted with them and registed independent and didn't pay attention to politics for a while. I started leaning libertarian and thought about registering Republican until I started paying attention and realizing that it was about conflicting ideologies and that they took their principles for granted (they still do although they claim to "get it" now, as a result the party is a disaster right now). As of now, I'm only concerned with basic competence. People tend to not believe me, but I honestly would vote for a Republican for president if they weren't a stereotype whose beliefs and actions were disconnected from reality, e.g. we want to start a second simultaneous war so we're going to cut taxes because that doesn't at all sound completely ridiculous, oh, and this war will be easy. After the election I was thinking I wanted to see some leadership come out of the GOP and it's best for the country to have a strong conservative presence to counter liberals, and I still think that. But it's clear to me that it's not going to happen anytime soon, and they've literally tied their fortunes to the possible failure of Obama for 2010. So conservative leadership won't be coming out of the GOP, at least for the time being, what with their joke budgets and silly half-serious proposals. Therefore I'm really just hoping the party just dies, and a new brand of conservative party comes out of it; the latter isn't that farfetched and wouldn't take that long if the former happened. That would be awesome, but unfortunately I don't see it happening for quite sometime.

Put me in the camp of the fiscal conservative with an apethetic social view (unless it happens in front of me, or involves me personally, I really don't care). My biggest issue with "my" party is that we're pandering to the extreme right for no good reason. They have no alternative. It's either the conservative or the extremely scary, socialism loving, gay supporting, fetus killing Democrat. To me that was the biggest failure of the McCain campaign - instead of working the middle, they grab a Sarah Palin to motivate the extreme right. They lost out on a lot of the undecideds by doing that and they gained nothing. Really, IMO these social issues are so worthless. Abortion and gay marriage are the most overrated, over talked about issues in the history of the world. I cannot believe how much press has been given to these issues, at least on a national level. They're issues that are drummed up to be important because the country is generally stupid when it comes to true issues, so it's easier to pick candidate A from candidate B with some "moral" issue. [my only interest in the gay marriage issue is the legal aspect. I'm sick and disgusted at how a bunch of old geezers sitting behind a bench have the gaul to tell an entire state what is moral and immoral. Technicalities aside, the Iowa supreme court (and Colorado and others) have decided a social issue, not a constitutional one....and i come from the position of not caring either way about gay marriage] And for the liberals poking fun/ridiculing/chastising the current "GOP strategy," the Dems did the EXACT same thing in the 2004 cycle. It was lots of pointing fingers, saying this move is the dumbest move in the history of the world, rallying the extreme base, and generally just being nasty. I think that's what every party does when they are out of power.

Worst game ever: March Madness Edition of the EA's NCAA game. What trash. Complete waste of 10-15 bucks, however much it was. In each game, regardless of the team you pick, the other team miraculously shoots 80% from the field. There's no way to play defense. If you try to take a charge, they fly right past you and dunk. If you try to play zone, they hit 20 footer after 20 footer. It's riduculous. I almost broke my controller last night.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Mar 30, 2009 -> 03:52 AM) Yeah, I was annoyed and surprised by that. I didn't think Louisville was that amazing of a team to be such a big favorite against Michigan State. Not to take anything away from Louisville, they deserved the #1 seed they got, but they weren't leaps and bounds better than the field and they certainly weren't the #1 overall team like the seeding gave them. It was purely a media creation to build up Louisville to that juggernaut. They were the conference champion and conference tournament champion of the best conference in the country (with no close 2nd). I think they fully deserved to be the #1 overall. As for the games, if Michigan State can hit some shots, I really like their chances. I like Villanova's too. They both play defense; UConn and UNC do not.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Mar 20, 2009 -> 12:39 AM) Nope. Unlike most, I think Memphis is a top 5 team in the country. I just couldn't see them going out like that. They obviously took CSN for granted. Once it was time for them to make their move, order was restored. Oops?

Nice to see Duke get exposed yet again as an overrated and overseeded team. I also love how ESPN just doesn't shy away from it's love of Duke. Throughout the 5 oclock sportscenter they'd bring up the schedule of games and claim that the "marquee" match up of the night was Duke-Villanova. Really? I thought that was probably the 2nd least interesting game after UConn-Purdue.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 01:43 PM) These laws on water were intended originally to stop people from impeding the natural flow of streams/rivers, stopping or changing springs, damming waterways, etc. Further, one modern aspect that is important is that you DO have to be careful (in urban areas particularly) to allow water to get back into the ground. On an urban scale, some western cities have learned the hard way how this is necessary... they build arroyos and other ways to get water through the city and into large rivers, thus not allowing it to soak in, thus depleting the water tables much more quickly. Now, on a small scale like this, no one is going to go after you for collecting rain water from your gutters. Nor should they. Its a responsible way to conserve water and money, and will have very little effect on things like river levels and water tables. So while the law technically says they are in violation, they'll never make an issue of it. Water laws are very complicated, and as time goes on, the battle for water on this planet will far surpass the battle for oil. Actually that's not true. A buddy of mine lives out in Denver. His bro-in-law just got a ticket for having a rain catcher. They take this stuff very seriously out there. I think it's pretty telling how ridiculous this is when the argument goes "we need that water to reach streams and rivers" but the evidence says 97% of that water never reaches any stream or river.

Honestly I think that's a slap in the face to Frank Williams. Put me in the camp of Williams never seeming like he cared (especially once he got his millions), but at least in college he was consistent - putting up 20+ pts and taking over games on a regular basis. McCamey has none of this. He's terrible on defense, makes about 3 good passes a game, rarely hits an open shot, and otherwise is worthless. McCamey's word is potential, but it's for 20 second splashes and that's it. Hopefully he transforms this summer, drops some weight and decides to play some defense. Here are my goals this off season: Tisdale gains 75 lbs, otherwise he's worthless Mccamey and Davis decide they want to play defense and that they want to play hard for 40 minutes...not just when the shots are falling and the team is winning. Legion hits a shot at some point in his illinois career Jeffrey Jordan gets an offensive game - he's turning out to be Chester Frazier Jr with better athleticism. Good D, still no O. I think next year we're going to have the same type of season - top 3-4 in the big ten with a chance at the title, a 4-6 seed in the tourney, and perhaps a run into the second weekend if the matchups are right.

Alex Legion = The Rally Killer. Every mother f***ing time illinois goes on a run he gets the ball and throws it away or takes a stupid shot.

god f***ing dammit. well, good season. s***ty ending.

I think the thing that angers me most is that it's been a good 5-6 games since i've seen a legitimate put back. Basically we "run" the offense, shoot the ball, miss, and run to play D.

terrible first half. no defense, no offensive boards, missed open shots. they need to play one of their best halfs of the year to win this game.

tisdale needs to gain about 50 lbs. he gets pushed around and becomes worthless. illinois is in this game. wk has hit some ridiculous 3's.

sigh another no show for the illinois offense.