dayman

Well I think the idea is force those people into the system. And I thought the number they were going with was $1000 not $800 but could be wrong.

It's a difficult job and they certainly may be guilty in "stretching" logic more in one direction than another to reach a determination more in line with their view of the constitution. But not to support party politics. This is a huge deal in terms of commerce clause jurisprudence. It is something they will all take seriously this case will be around long after Obama and the current Repubs.

They really do decide legal questions to the best of their abilities according to how they view the constitution. They don't have some "agenda that is beyond the constitution" that is precisely what they are sworn not to have and they all take that seriously. That is what I believe.

It really just isn't true. Not true. There is probably nothing that would cause you to think otherwise though.

Just got done with the entire thing. Honestly it's almost as if that guy did more harm than good. Their first lawyer did such an outstanding job following the bumbling solicitor that they didn't need more. Then that guy got up their like Bill O'Reilly and was somewhat combative and generally brought a demeanor that hurt their cause, something the first guy was excellent at avoiding. Not that any of this will matter in the end I'm sure but it was interesting to see his approach.

Like it or not there's a legal presumption they know what they're talking about.

There are 4 Dem- and 4 Repub-appointed judges who in the past have voted along those lines. Kennedy was Repub-appointed, but has been a wildcard with his decisions. Yea but that isn't the way it always works being a conservative judge is not the same as being a conservative political person and to use one example many though Scalia would support the mandate based on his strong view of the commerce clause. At this point it doesn't seem like Scalia is leaning that way...but who knows! Anyway all I'm saying is this one isn't "all on Kennedy" as is the common view (even though it's an over simplification in most situations and not just this one).

Ya what was great was day 1 where you have Roberts clearly showing he feels a toothless legal obligation is no obligation at all. Then Kagan clearly feels the opposite. To me anyway, based on the questioning. Any 5 year old has weighed this idea in their head about the countless rules their mom gives them. Is it a rule if there is no punishment? Yet there are two distinguished judges with what at least seems clear (through questioning...but again I'm the one saying it isn't smart to read into that) that disagree about that.

Well in this instance I'm not convinced there is an identifiable "swing judge" but either way I can't argue that it's not perfectly reasonable to argue today didn't go well. As for the mandate being a Republican idea, that has nothing to do with the legal question it just to me is funny given the way political people are acting now.

While today was a brutal and brutal from the very first question, it's absolutely INSANE to put any real stock in where the judge's are going based on their questioning. They use it to play devil's advocate to their own opinion, to communicate with each other, and yes often to just answer a question they too are wondering...but the bottom line is if you listen to SC oral arguments over time you know that it's dangerous to assume anything b/c of them. Also I love how some people in this thread say things like "obviously unconstitutional" and "oh just gave libs the next great idea." Ya...the mandate was a Republican idea first and foremost. And a huge portion of lawmakers passed the bill, and thus thought it would be constitutional. Also, I'd like to point out that if I were a justice and I was dead set to uphold the mandate...the questions I would ask would all center around "what limit" does the commerce clause have if any b/c in writing my opinion I'd be hard pressed not to include SOME dicta in there speaking to that point. So that's one example of how questioning isn't what it may seem. A justice asking a question is not a justice implying they disagree with what they are questioning.

We need to trade this guy before his value is 0 b/c there isn't a spot on this team for him.

Smith won't throw it based on what I've seen so there's only one answer.

Could be wrong but if I recall correctly Thigpen is in the 2nd year of a 3 year deal where he's making fairly substantial money as a back up. I think he's our guy for this year at least. If Fitzy struggles or is hurt the entire project we're building for is screwed.

This topic has turned into the argument for moving down if at all possible this year. Get it done Buddy. Resign Bell, and move down/get more picks and take BPA to add depth and maybe even strike gold.

Taking goal posts down and generally storming field/court is not really something that happens in pro-sports anymore. Although if we did it the national media would just talk about how great Buffalo is and how it's like a college atmosphere for pro-football so it could be worth it. That said, I wouldn't want to be involved.

That's what the insiders call a "flawless offseason."

Suggested steps for Saints franchise: 1) Trade Brees (and anyone else you can) for unGodly amounts of picks to recoup the ability to build 2) In doing so and also w/ coaching frenzy expect to tank, and tank hard revealing New Orleans wont' go to games unless the team is real good 3) Sneak out of garbage heap that is New Orleans and settle in a new cozy stadium in LA 4) Rebuild to a patient and ecstatic fan base that just got a team back, in a town FA's will want to come to 5) Profit from all this. Help Bills stay in WNY along the way.

This is fantastic news for the Bills

I'm on board

8/26/2011: Signed a six-year, $33.555 million contract. The deal contains $17 million guaranteed, including a $4.75 million signing bonus and both of Williams' first- and second-year base salaries. Another $5.5 million is available through incentives. 2011: Under Contract, 2012: Under Contract (+ $2 million roster bonus), 2013: $3.85 million (+ $1 million roster bonus), 2014: $4.35 million, 2015-2016: Under Contract, 2017: Free Agent http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/3947/kyle-williams

Poor Buffalo and its acknowledged inferiority complex.

No higher than 32 until I see it.

Can't bring myself to watch post-Carolla

Also while it seems crazy if nobody offers him anything we should throw pennies at Roscoe and take him back. At some point he has to string a full year together.

Incoming OT at pick 10. Hagen/Jones/Easley battle in camp