brett05

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 12:23 PM) Try it. Watch what happens. Let us know how it turns out. Just because certain rules can be broken doesn't mean I want to. If you don't think anyone could just do this either the three polling places I've been a part of are an anomaly or you aren't too observant of polling places.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 12:09 PM) It's not particularly bold when they were so obvious about it, as the court observed.Read the court ruling in full, if you haven't yet. I did. Of a completely liberal court. No surprises really.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 11:51 AM) That's the court ruling. Read it if you want to understand what was wrong with the law. I read the PDF as well as the left leaning Washington Post article. It's pretty bold to accuse this of being a race driven event IMO.

would this be the summary? http://nc-democracy.org/downloads/NewVotin...maryAug2013.pdf

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 11:22 AM) Read the lower court's decision. The bill doesn't explicitly state "no black people can vote," but the legislative history as reviewed by the court found that to be abundantly clear. Here's a short preview: Incidentally, Shelby County is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever written and really undermines the claim that the Roberts court is liberal. I'm sorry, where is the part that is actually law? Perhaps I missed it.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 11:14 AM) The law's value was to suppress the black vote. The fact that you think it's only about photo ID tells me you haven't read much about this law. Perhaps I have misread it months ago. I'm open to that. Can you provide an unbiased link to the bill for me to review?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 11:11 AM) Actually it is explicitly illegal to make laws for certain reasons, and NC's law, which was more expansive than just Voter ID, was found to be in blatant violation of those laws. By your statement all laws are illegal as all laws are made for certain reasons. Voting is a right for some, not all and that is what the voter ID system does. Not only could I vote all day, but I could cast votes for women and the deceased. There is no way for the judges to know as they verify absolutely NOTHING outside of a name for the correct precinct.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 10:38 AM) Sure, but even if you want to get that simplistic (which misses an awful lot of what the court does and why, even strategically how they vote and what cases are even heard in the first place), the aggregate over the past several decades is still not a liberal court. brett, why do you think the NC law should have been allowed to stand? The lower courts found a clear and explicit history of the legislature crafting the law specifically to disenfranchise minority voters. The reason a law is made does not necessarily devalue the law itself. Voter ID issue is basic common sense. I need an ID to do so many things, including attend a baseball game for the Wrigley Rooftops but not one to vote? There is nothing stopping anyone from voting multiple times in an election. I could go to my local precinct and cast votes all day long.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 08:14 AM) No, as was already explained to you the last time you tried to claim that the SCOTUS has been liberal for a while because right wing conservatives don't win every single case. Right, you explained it and I countered it showing that the court is indeed liberal leaning. Thankfully you're wrong. With each day Trump closes the gap or slowly takes the lead. It's really Trump's to lose.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 1, 2016 -> 10:38 AM) Related, the scotus rejected north Carolinas voter restriction appeal. Really looking forward to a fully liberal scotus. Mostly liberal now. This measure should have failed. The asylum is being run by the inmates and it needs to stop. Thankfully each day it appears more and more likely that Trump is winning this one.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 31, 2016 -> 06:21 PM) And now we find out they DIF talk about paying for wall, Mexico made clear no, trump lied said they didn't talk about it. Or other way around. Either way... Not shocking Actually Trump did not Lie. Trump and the President did not discuss. All that was said was the President of Mexico made a statement. Lots to hate upon Trump without making up lies.

Trump was excellent yesterday. Very presidential.

Abreu

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 14, 2016 -> 12:01 AM) After watching Biden at the ESPY's a thought hit me: Why the hell didn't he run for President this time. He would be GREAT and a super alternative to Hillary. Nobody hates Joe Biden. Many people are like me and not fond of Hillary. What was Biden thinking?? That he has suffered major family loss and is ready to move on with the next chapter in his life with his spouse

QUOTE (soxfan49 @ Jul 7, 2016 -> 06:42 PM) I have a 3rd interview with a financial firm 5 days from today. I have to get 60 people to fill out an 8-question survey prior to the 3rd interview. I have about 20 completed. Would anyone be interested in letting me PM them with a quick 8 questions? It'd be appreciated! EDIT: I know the perception is since it's a financial firm that 1. it's a scam to get personal info and 2. i'm going to ask questions about your personal financial situations. 1. I'm really doing this and 2. there's nothing in there about anything money related. I'll help

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 11, 2016 -> 09:01 AM) I don't care if they'd agree with it or not--they're factually wrong. The flip side to that would be: Abortion (everything up to the decision last week was a weakening of abortion rights, and if Texas's law wasn't struck down, then Roe would essentially be meaningless) I'm assuming you mean gay marriage? Yeah, the tides have shifted there. Healthcare--Roberts was able to gut the Medicaid expansion, but otherwise a pretty procedural ruling. On the flip side, you've got: Shelby County, probably the worst decision I've seen Bush v Gore, a close runner-up The above mentioned gutting of the Medicaid expansion for pretty odd reasons Citizens United Heller and Miller Hobby Lobby A series of rulings including AT&T vs Concepcion gutting class action lawsuits and strengthening mandatory arbitration clauses Several Bush-era PATRIOT Act or similar domestic spying programs A court with Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and libertarian-conservative Kennedy is a court with a pretty decent conservative lean. Going back further, the court really only gets more conservative until you hit the early 70's. The only way this period could be defined as a liberal court would be to define a conservative court as one that issued rulings favorable to movement conservatives 100% of the time and anything else as liberal. I appreciate you including some cases. It got me learning about a few things. Rights to protect the unborn child would be central ground. To date we don't have that. Marriage at all in government hands is wrong - straight, gay, whatever Yes healthcare as a right is a liberal movement, not a conservative one. So I started to read on yours. Shelby case. If this is your most egregious decision toward conservatism, then yes, the SC is liberal. Bush v Gore was a legal matter. Even with the vote of 7-2 kinda shows the impartiality of the decision The ACLU, about as liberal as it gets, even agreed with the Citizens United case. It seems like the Court corrected things for the First Amendment. Heller and Miller - if you are defining that the right to arms is a conservative lean, than guilty as charged. That said, almost every rule is being done to restrict that. Ironically some of the worst armed crime is those areas with the most restrictiveness (Chicago and New York) Hobby Lobby - yes it was a conservative ruling allowing close held corporations the same rights as non-for profits. So if you want to do a breakdown of cases which most of the surveys do, yes, the court is seen as more conservative. However, on importance like the situations I brought forth, no, the weight of the court has been liberal. A balanced court addresses fairness. This election should speak clearly what the American people want. Won't mean it is right, but it would be democratic.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 8, 2016 -> 08:03 AM) The court has been majority conservative for at least a couple of decades now. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02...in-decades.html No conservatives would agree with that. YOu look at all the liberal positions that have happened from the SC over the years and it's liberal. Abortion Government Marriage Healthcare to name just three.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 7, 2016 -> 02:13 PM) Locking in a liberal supreme court for the next generation is the most important thing in this election imo. The court has been conservative for a while now. Replacing Scalia with even a moderate like Merrick Garland would be a massive ideological shift. RGB probably leaves the court within the next four years as well, so replacing her with another solid liberal keeps that balance. If Kennedy, the next oldest, also leaves the court, suddenly we've got a relatively young 6-3 liberal court that will be in place for decades. Winning Congress and the Presidency is important, but if you have a SC dead set against you, your policies can be struck down with some terribly convoluted arguments (e.g. Shelby County being one of the worst in recent memory). Obamacare with a slightly more conservative court is DoA, Obamacare with a slightly more liberal court means the Medicaid expansion isn't gutted and millions more low income Americans have access to health care. I agree, only it needs to be conservative. The SC has made too many mistakes already because of it's liberal lean. We need one right now just for balance.

June 30th. Eaton (4): Schuck (5): Abreu (1): brett05 Frazier (1): Cabrera (3): Lawrie (3): Avi (3): Catcher (3): ANDERSON (6):

Abreu

My kids think it takes two days to get to the Dells. We'll see how quick they figure it out that we are going to Disney instead.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jun 22, 2016 -> 08:29 AM) But he doesn't get wins you're wrong. Does walk of shame.... ....for being a white sox fan

Over the past year Q has been the best pitcher in the AL (using WAR)

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 21, 2016 -> 05:31 PM) ...a Boras client who will never in a million years sign an extension and lose a free agent year. Happens all the time for Boras clients who avoid free agency. That's the real myth.

Tonight's RAW I start it off with Dean. After some talk about who gets their rematch first, he pulls out a contract from his back pocket. He signs it and dares Roman and Seth to come down and do likewise. Or better... Start with Rollins in the ring asking for his re-match. Wait a bit and have Reigns ask for his re-match. Have it almost get to fists and then kill the lights. After a moment show the two laid out in the ring. Allow the whole place think it's Dean. Do it again next week doing it Rollins first then another segment to Reigns. Third Monday allow ax executive chair to spin where only Ambrose sees who/what is in the chair. We get to later see a contract for Battleground of Dean vs an unknown opponent. Battleground Rollins v Reigns the other match is the one that has done all the damage. Ambrose comes out and says something like folks thought I was crazy to turn in the briefcase as I did. Now they see that I am a lunatic for taking a title match against an unknown opponent. the lights drop and we see the dim light...We're Here. Bray's music hits and that becomes battleground.