transplantbillsfan

Ah.... a misunderstanding apparently. When I said "unprecedented, even unconstitutional," the "arguably" was rhetorically implicit before the "even."

Well you lost that wager you arrogant moron. Yes, you must be the lawyer who knows all and they know nothing. You can't even concede something simple that might help you out like that reading the constitution 240+ years after it was written involves interpretation of the words of men living in a vastly different world under vastly different conditions. Pathetic. Glad you aren't my lawyer.

Bro. There are plenty of practicing/practiced lawyers from those lists. So that was an empty wager then. But puff out your chest some more

Again. The whole "Biden rule" thing is mythology. “If the president consults and cooperates with the Senate [in naming a Supreme Court nominee], or moderates his selection absent consultation, then his nominee may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.” Literally the speech from which the Biden rule was adopted.

Just curious... was this wager based on your combined years vs ALL the added combined years of the 400+... actually now more like 700 lawyers, Deans, law professors, etc. I've referenced?

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/nearly_250_corporate_lawyers_sign_letter_urging_obama_and_senate_leaders_to/ When a vacancy on the court arises, the Constitution is clear ... Article II, Section 2 states that the President 'shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court' ... Though the Senate may ultimately choose not to consent to the president's nominee, it would be unprecedented for the Senate to refuse to perform its 'advice and consent' role in this context. Not only does the Constitution direct the sitting president to nominate an individual to fill a vacancy on the court no matter whether it is an election year, nearly one third of all presidents have nominated a justice in an election year who was eventually confirmed

Can you explain your justification for McConnell's 100% unprecedented action in the previous 240 years of history in the United States of America and your dissent from the public opinion of several hundred constitutional lawyers and professors then? Or do you just want to keep namecalling?

So are you a lawyer?

Dumbass? You're a real piece of work. Way to prove that this place is just a cesspool. You should probably get back to your InfoWars. So you're a lawyer then?

Yeah... let's not listen to over 400 lawyers and law professors... let's instead listen to the old racist curmudgeon. His thoughts on constitutional law are clearly more important and credible than the 400+ professionals who study the ins and outs of the constitution.

Article 2 section 2: "The President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law" Letters and statements from those who DO teach constitutional law: https://www.acslaw.org/press_release/top-constitutional-law-scholars-say-no-exception-to-the-rule-in-filling-supreme-court-vacancy-in-election-year/ "the Senate's constitutional duty to 'advise and consent'—the process that has come to include hearings, committee votes, and floor votes—has no exception for election years. In fact, over the course of American history, there have been 24 instances in which presidents in the last year of a term have nominated individuals for the Supreme Court and the Senate confirmed 21 of these nominees." https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/03/10/letter-experts-president-supreme-court-nominee "It is technically in the power of the Senate to engage in aggressive denial on presidential nominations. But we believe that the Framers' construction of the process of nominations and confirmation to federal courts, including the Senate's power of "advice and consent," does not anticipate or countenance an obdurate refusal by the body to acknowledge or consider a president's nominee, especially to the highest court in the land. The refusal to hold hearings and deliberate on a nominee at this level is truly unprecedented and, in our view, dangerous ... The Constitution gives the Senate every right to deny confirmation to a presidential nomination. But denial should come after the Senate deliberates over the nomination, which in contemporary times includes hearings in the Judiciary Committee, and full debate and votes on the Senate floor. Anything less than that, in our view, is a serious and, indeed, unprecedented breach of the Senate's best practices and noblest traditions for much of our nation's history" https://www.afj.org/press-room/press-releases/over-350-law-professors-urge-senators-to-fulfill-their-constitutional-duty "fulfill your constitutional duty to give President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee a prompt and fair hearing and a timely vote."

And he STILL did something completely unprecedented, even unconstitutional. The Biden rule hypothetical had to do with a Supreme Court Justice retiring in an effort of a kind of one to one replacement, not unexpectedly dying. Besides, Biden also said: “If the president consults and cooperates with the Senate [in naming a Supreme Court nominee], or moderates his selection absent consultation, then his nominee may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.” 13 Presidents have filled Supreme Court vacancies from Washington all the way to Reagan. 17 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed in a Presidential election year, including Anthony Kennedy who was appointed by a Republican President and unanimously confirmed by a Democratic Senate. Garland was the first Supreme Court nominee to not even receive a hearing in over 100 years.

Well I certainly appreciate the work done by you. Jives with what I've been saying: accuracy isn't a big problem for Allen. Decision making was the much bigger problem. Are you still doing all the other QBs, too? His numbers--while interesting--don't mean much with out at least a handful of others to compare him with.

These people don't care if Trump lies or commits constant infidelity or sexually assaults multiple women by his own admission for that matter. They don't care about farmer's or small businesses like craft breweries losing money because of the trade war. They don't care that despite consistently getting shot down in the courts to build his promised wall, he's instead going to undermine one of his very few accomplishments as President with the USMCA (really just NAFTA updated) by putting escalating tariffs on Mexico for a migrant problem that he's made significantly worse. He'll, they don't care about any lies their boys are doing over there What they care about is their time in the Sun and watching The Other suffer. And they laugh at the lies when it's their guy or their party and criminalize them if they sniff them on the opposite side. Well, they have another year and a half of that. Then Biden, the most likely Democratic candidate, becomes President.

It's factually incorrect to say that Trump firing Comey, going on Lester Holt and saying the firing of Comey was Russia related, and then the Special Counsel being hired just a few days later aren't directly connected? Seriously??? Call everything else a reason for the Mueller appointment because, sure, it contributed. But I honestly can't believe you guys over here are so dug in that you can't even acknowledge that what transpired over those few days surrounding the Comey firing along with the firing itself isn't the straw that broke the camel's back. Amazing.

8 days between the firing of Comey vs more than half a year from when Trump got elected. Deny it all you want, but the Comey firing was the catalyst for the hiring of the Speicial Counsel.

I didn't respond to the intellectual dishonesty part, did I? I don't dislike anyone here. It's an Internet Message board... it is what it is. And I choose, on occasion, to meander into the politics portion of the larger sports message board I frequent. I understand the consequences and am secure enough in myself intellectually that I don't need or want to engage every time or even most times I'm engaged. But I'll say this. I knew I wanted to be an educator when I was in 9th grade. I love my job. I love the classroom. I love my subject matter. And I'm good at my job. I will NEVER win any teacher of the year awards because, for the most part, today those are all about how above and beyond a teacher will go outside of his/her classroom. That's not me. But I'm damn good at what goes on inside my classroom and I seek to improve every year. And I find there are a LOT of teachers like me. So saying my principles are a certain way because all educators have this certain principle is ridiculous.

Don't be a jackass. I teach English literature. Fiction is more fun to teach than fact and provides more flexibility for critical thinking. It's a lot easier to teach multiple acceptable viewpoints as long as you have the evidence to support and nothing negates what you've said with a poem than something from a history text. I don't TOUCH politics in my class and I don't envy Social Studies teachers. My "principles" as a teacher are for students to be free but thoughtful thinkers who consider multiple viewpoints. I don't care that I'm not liked here. But go ***** yourself if you think you know what kind of educator I am or what I'm like in the classroom.

So let me get this straight. Mueller... the ONLY guy in our country with massive sweeping authority to go back and interview witnesses, look at ALL (or almost all) source material, and investigate what happened over the last 2 years whether the President committed one of 2 crimes (remember that it was the Comet firing and thus the obstructing justice that actually got this investigation going, NOT collusion) gets his report squelched for more than a month by a guy who chose to write up his own "summary" despite those available in the actual report where he basically twists his own narrative to present an innocent President, but in his own report he comes out with SEVERAL instances of potential obstruction of justice, yet states specifically that DOJ guidelines prevented him from indicting a sitting President, the clear premise he was operating under. And NOW he resigns from DOJ with a 10 minute statement that really doesn't say anything new at all if you've read the report, but instead acknowledges in a more public manner for the widespread illiterate or media junkies of our society... and that makes him partisan???? He said nothing new. But clearly he believed that more of the public needed a different summation of the report than the overtly partisan one that his boss gave... twice. Too funny.

That's what I thought. Guess those 29 years of fanhood haven't made you any smarter.

And holy crap what a characterization of that pass. Just went back and watched and rewatched and rewatched that play. #26 never even had a chance to intercept that ball, no matter what he did. At best, he might have been able to tip it. But Flacco threw a pretty good ball there. Not perfect, but pretty good. It could have been a little longer so that Jones wouldn't have to slow down, but the DB never had a chance to intercept, just to possibly make a play on it. On top of that, you have Flacco evade pressure and step up in the pocket to make a clutch 3rd down throw at THE critical juncture of the game. What an amazing play! The way you paint that pass seriously contradicts reality. Rather than telling me to go back and watch individual plays, maybe you should

Nice job cherry-picking. The facts are that Flacco had one of the most impressive playoff to Super Bowl runs as a QB in NFL history. The guy threw ZERO interceptions to 11 TDs. 4 of those TDs were in the 4th Quarter. 1 was essentially a walkoff game winning TD. Tell you what, football is the ultimate team game, so it's obvious that other players on the Ravens were required to win that Super Bowl on the field at various times, but it's delusional to insinuate that Flacco was somehow along for the ride or that the defense was somehow more responsible for that Super Bowl win. The Ravens had a middling defense that year during the regular season and a middling defense throughout the defense. That's what they were. Now, maybe everyone found some extra motivation because Lewis was retiring, but as far as on the field play goes, Flacco was the single player BY FAR who was most responsible for that Super Bowl run. I don't like Flacco and didn't really ever want him as our QB, but trying to take away or diminish an accomplishment like that is preposterous. Tell you what, brah, rather than cherry-picking individual plays why don't you rewatch the ENTIRE 4 GAME RUN and identify a single player or a single positional group somehow more responsible for that Super Bowl run than Flacco.

So you're resorting to an "I know you are, but what am I?" post? Ridiculous. Joe Flacco was the singular driving factor involved in that Super Bowl run. "Bu... bu... but the defense held the Patriots to 13 points!!!" True, and they held Indianapolis to 9 points. But where was the Defense for the Denver game or for the Super Bowl when they gave up a combined 66 points and 866 yards? Yeah, the sure did rise up and lift that team to victory. Oh wait... no they didn't. By the way, in those 2 combined games Flacco threw the ball 67 times for over 600 yards, 6 TDs and ZERO Interceptions. It was consistently Flacco. You're being silly. But keep diggin your hole. See how far down you can go. Maybe you'll reach China.

Well. Louis Riddick is entitled to his own opinion, but how much you wanna bet he didn't actually watch all of Allen's passes this year?