User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.6868 seconds
46 querie(s) executed
| ||||||||
Baseball Primer Newsblog — The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand Monday, June 04, 2018OTP 2018 June 4: How Dr. Alan Nathan Became Baseball Fans’ Favorite Physicist
But what does this have to do with politics? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.) Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant
Posted: June 04, 2018 at 07:48 AM | 1535 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags: off topic, physics, politics, witch-hunt, wizards |
Login to submit news.
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsNewsblog: OT - 2018-19 NBA thread (All-Star Weekend to Twelfth of Never edition)
(61 - 7:39am, Feb 20) Last: It's TFTIO's Monster, Actually Newsblog: With Machado to Padres, Phillies say they won’t be pressured into a Bryce Harper deal. Now what? – The Athletic (1 - 7:38am, Feb 20) Last: Bug Selig Newsblog: Trevor Bauer Is More Concerned With Being Right Than Being Liked (63 - 7:11am, Feb 20) Last: . Newsblog: BREAKING: Free agent star Manny Machado has agreed to a deal with the San Diego Padres, league sources tell ESPN. (110 - 6:50am, Feb 20) Last: . Newsblog: ESPN: Former Dodgers great Don Newcombe dead at 92 (16 - 6:47am, Feb 20) Last: . . . . . . Newsblog: With Manny Machado’s deal, reports of baseball’s demise might have been exaggerated - The Washington Post (6 - 6:42am, Feb 20) Last: . Newsblog: Moreno says Angels have had internal talks on new Trout deal (7 - 3:08am, Feb 20) Last: Davo and his Moose Tacos Newsblog: The clock is ticking for pitchers, and there are concerns (25 - 1:07am, Feb 20) Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Newsblog: OT Soccer Thread, v.2019 (237 - 1:06am, Feb 20) Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther Newsblog: Brewers' plan is to move Moustakas to second base and keep Shaw at third (13 - 12:29am, Feb 20) Last: Dr. Vaux Newsblog: OT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (February 2019) (211 - 10:57pm, Feb 19) Last: Morty Causa Newsblog: With labor tension high, it’s time for me, Dr. Rosenthal, to stage an intervention between MLB and its players (2 - 10:33pm, Feb 19) Last: Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Newsblog: Bradford: Did Red Sox learn their lesson after Jon Lester mess-up? | WEEI (5 - 9:44pm, Feb 19) Last: Walt Davis Newsblog: Baseball’s Shifting Financial Equation: Long-Term Security Over Free Agency - WSJ (1 - 7:43pm, Feb 19) Last: Walt Davis Newsblog: Reds' Joey Votto tries to rebound from subpar season (5 - 7:33pm, Feb 19) Last: bbmck |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2014 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.6868 seconds |
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
There is no conversation to be had by simply telling us all the score of a game. And what the hell is so verboten about posting it in an old omnichatter? Or in the dugout?
Yeah, not to beat a dead horse, but this is kind of the key point. If Andy were just so excited about an unusual play that had occurred or a freak injury or something and he didn't have anywhere to discuss it, that might be one thing. (Not saying it would be appropriate here, but it would be understandable.) But all he's doing is posting ordinary scoring updates.
If there's no Omnichatter & no hope of getting one (which I doubt), surely the pop culture thread would make more sense for updates than OTP does.
Again, it's only because there hasn't been any ominchatter posted for today, and the weekend omnichatter's dropped off Hot Topics. BFD all around.
If there's no Omnichatter & no hope of getting one (which I doubt), surely the pop culture thread would make more sense for updates than OTP does.
I'll bear that in mind.
Maybe try reading what I wrote again? Not sure what to say beyond that.
Never disagreed with any of that, or even hinted any disagreement with any of it. In fact, I wrote on the topic that the issue was narrowly decided, contextually, and that narrow decisions are properly to be preferred to wider ones when it comes to constitutional interpretation. I merely added the insightful point that it's going to be hard down the road, given what the various opinions said, for commissions to tell religious guys, "Bake," when they're telling secular guys, "You don't have to bake." Moreover, I correctly noted that the free speech issue wasn't addressed because it didn't need to be (*), but it remains a very potent argument for which there are at least two clear votes.
It would be more him agreeing with me, but YMMV I guess.
(*) See the majority opinion, as follows:
The freedoms asserted here are both the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. The free speech aspect of this case is difficult, for few persons who have seen a beautiful wedding cake might have thought of its creation as an exercise of protected speech. This is an instructive example, however, of the proposition that the application of constitutional freedoms in new contexts can deepen our understanding of their meaning.
...
Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State’s obligation of religious neutrality.
And I'll pay particular attention to anything coming from you, I'm sure.
In these days of the DVR it's common to try and watch things later, and seems like a simple enough request to honor in the OTP thread. The pop culture and chatter threads are blissfully free of politics (and better for it!), we should make at least some effort to keep OTP spoiler-free. Please.
You would be able to hear them screeching from Mars.
I didn't know Bill McNeal was still doing his show. Good for him!
But then ... Crowd cheers when valedictorian quotes Trump. Then reveals it was Obama
No real point, just amused by the Valedictorian. Probably just a liberal elite though.
Much more after the link. Something to keep an eye on?
I think his point was that they'd simply skip the whole indicting process and impeach her. Not that this gets tested all that often, but the supposition is that for presidents, the law and the justice system don't matter anymore. Instead it is the House's role to accuse and the Senate's role to convict.
This is one of my life's ambitions. To make a joke in a wedding toast that bombs except for one person falling out of their chair in the back.
I find it adds depth and color to the exchange.
I say, I say, that's big idea you got there, and puts the whole thing in a new perspective, as it were. My word, you are a genius, I say, a genius.
(You forgot a step at the end)
And then indict her and "lock her up!"
And then indict her and "lock her up!"
True! Whatever happened to that campaign promise? I mean, what is stopping them?
"No puppet, no puppet. You're the puppet."
Don't just get involved. Be the thing other people want to be involved with. Don't fight for your seat at the table. Make other people build the table around you. Better yet, make other people build the table around you and then stiff them on the bill.
In these days of the DVR it's common to try and watch things later, and seems like a simple enough request to honor in the OTP thread. The pop culture and chatter threads are blissfully free of politics (and better for it!), we should make at least some effort to keep OTP spoiler-free. Please.
Sure, no problem. Won't do it again.
That wouldn't work, because as notorious front runners, the only reason a Yankees fan would post something like that would be when the Yankees did something good.
Actually IT IS a BFD is someone is DVRing that game and you randomly spoil it. It's a total dick move, Andy/
I think you undersell the distance.
EDIT: The Ford link isn't working. If you're interested, here's the url: https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North America/US/2018/06/01/18-may-sales.pdf
EDIT 2: You'll also notice that except for the F_Series, no Ford product has outsold the Civic, and only the F-Series and Escape have outsold the Accord. So consumers will indeed buy cars instead of SUVs.
Actually IT IS a BFD is someone is DVRing that game and you randomly spoil it. It's a total dick move, Andy/
Okay, now that's a point I should've thought of, but didn't. (I don't even have a DVR.) But it wasn't intentional, and it won't happen again.
There's no actual answer to the question because it hasn't been tested yet in court -- no, Laurence Tribe and Norm Eisen aren't actually on the Supreme Court -- but there's a strong argument that he can. And the argument on the other side is no stronger. (I think the argument that he cannot is weaker but YMMV.) This is essentially a 50-50 question, and anyone who tells you otherwise is full of what makes the grass grow green.
But actually, even if Trump were to pardon himself today it would likely not be reviewed by the courts since it's a political question. What would probably have to happen for it to receive judicial review is that Trump would first have to be charged with a crime or indicted, with Trump pardoning himself either before or after, and then the prosecutor would ask a court to rule on whether the indictment could proceed.
But absent such a scenario taking place (i.e., an actual charge or indictment with Trump self-pardoning himself) Trump could likely pardon himself and others without the issue being reviewed by a court during his term or possibly even ever.
Thus the textual argument is that Section 2 gives him the unfettered power to grant pardons for federal crimes, and does not carve out an exception for pardoning himself. Instead it states that he simply can't pardon himself from impeachment.
That's a pretty strong argument that he can self pardon.
As I said, the courts haven't ruled on the issue, and -- even now -- a self pardon would likely not be reviewed by the courts unless Trump is indicted and raises the pardon as a defense and thus a prosecutor goes to court to try to quash the indictment.
The best counter argument is probably that there is a longstanding tenet of judicial review that nobody can be a judge in his or her own case (*). But to my mind that general tenet doesn't outweigh the specific text of Article II, Section 2. The Framers could easily have prohibited self pardons. They did not.
The main takeaway though is that when Trump says he can pardon himself he is not advancing some conspiracy theory or crazed frivolous legal argument as his detractors imply. The constitutional/legal argument is strong, and those who claim it isn't -- or that Trump is being authoritarian when he says this -- are either not being intellectually honest or don't understand the legal and constitutional issues at play.
Edit: (*) In counter to the counter argument, the president is not acting as a judge but simply in a political capacity using the powers granted to him under the Constitution. In counter to the argument that a self pardon would be prohibited as self-dealing, obviously presidents can act in nepotistic ways -- even while using the pardon power. Bill Clinton pardoned his brother.
And (as to self-dealing) George Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger and five others when their investigations could have potentially led to an indictment of Bush. Bush's pardon of Weinberger et al Stopped All Investigations. And yet few people a quarter century ago uttered a peep about Bush's pardon of Weinberger and friends being obstruction.
Low IQ scores predict excellence in data science
On this score Trump probably loses. This too is an unsettled question, but the text of the Constitution doesn't speak to this issue. The closest the Constitution comes to addressing this is Article I, Section 3:
“Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”
Thus in effect the Constitution says that an impeached official (including an impeached president) can be indicted. And the Constitution never says that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
Thus to me the stronger argument is that a sitting president can be indicted (although the argument that he cannot be does have merit - it's just that it's weaker). This is consistent with my view that Trump can pardon himself: the Constitution speaks explicitly to his pardon power but does not have an exception for self pardon.
To reach the conclusion that Trump can't be indicted while in office you have to make an implicit or structural argument, which I think is the weaker argument. (Note to the Trump critics, however: Trump asserting this would not be frivolous or crazy or dictator-y; it's a credible argument, just weaker.)
What everyone agrees about is that the president can be indicted after she leaves office, unless she's pardoned.
Eric Holder thinks you're an idiot.
"Bottom line: Holder said Trump issuing pardons "will not ultimately thwart the Mueller investigation." That’s because "if Bob Mueller, for instance wants to take a pardoned person, put that person before a grand jury, that person no longer has the ability to say, 'I'm going to invoke my Fifth Amendment right'" and "that person then becomes a perfect witness for the special counsel.""
Omega Dancing Monkey moron.
Note to Ray; yes it would. The fact that a power made dictator wannabe might twist the spirit of the American Constitution to "say" this doesn't mean his desire to do it isn't dictatorial and authoritarian. You give aid and comfort to the enemy by doing this, Ray.
WTH, Andy, are you still taping movies off cable directly onto VHS cassettes? :)
It's an interesting premise that vaguely reminds me of a principle in textual editing: lectio difficilior. The idea is, if you have two manuscripts of a classical text, and one has a weird word and the other a common, expected word, you assume that the author actually wrote the more difficult, weirder word. The idea is that the scribe copying one of the ms. was smart and literate, and mentally corrected the weird word to a common linguistic pattern à la the squares or the Fibonacci sequence in math.
This from a 2000 Jusitce Department memo summarizes the view of the 1973 JD:
"In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions." But this argument is not all that persuasive because a special counsel investigation such as Starr's or Mueller's is constitutional.
Conclusion:
"1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution."
Mueller may consider himself bound by this guidance.
According to Giuliani -- and take it with a huge grain of salt since even when Giuliani isn't lying he's often confused about the legal issues -- Mueller's team acknowledged to Trump's team that Mueller would follow Justice Department guidelines and not indict sitting President Trump. At least, that's the only way I see to logically parse Giuliani's comments. Giuliani actually said that Mueller's team "acknowledged" that they "can't indict" Trump, which makes no sense; they can choose to follow Justice Department guidelines but they aren't bound by a court of law on this issue. Mueller's team might lose in court -- though on this issue I doubt they would -- but even if one thinks they'd lose that doesn't mean they can't try.
Giuliani also said that Mueller's team "acknowledged to us orally" that they "understand that they can't violate the Justice Department rules." Again -- they certainly CAN "violate" (that's the wrong word) Justice Department "rules." Because they're just Justice Department "rules" (really just guidance or a legal opinion as far as I understand it) and the "rules" represent the views of past Justice Departments -- not necessarily the present Justice Department -- and under different factual circumstances.
Note that Clinton tried hard to argue that he couldn't be forced to appear for the Jones civil deposition -- he threw every legal argument he could against the wall -- and the Supreme Court ruled against him thereby rejecting a sitting president's immunity for civil litigation. Whether this extends to criminal litigation has not been tested.
You're out of your depth here. Again, the framers could quite easily have excepted self-pardons from the president's pardon power. ("No president can pardon himself.") They did not do so. That makes Trump's argument strong.
If you want to call the framers fascists, go right ahead. But all you're doing is flame throwing. You can't actually discuss substance, because you don't know anything about the underlying subject matter and you don't understand the constitutional/legal issues at play.
Tell us again how climate change is a hoax.
This cannot be said loudly enough. The way Hitler (the real one, not the clown one) amassed power and control, was entirely by working with the powers that were vested in his office, to which he was democratically elected. (most notably his power to dissolve the Reichstag and force reelections).
The notion that something cannot be authoritarian or dictatorial just because it is legal is beyond stupid. See for example also the frequent authoritarian but legal actions of the police.
Eh too cute by half. It wants to try and argue that the obvious answers are 'wrong,' and that the more convoluted answers are 'correct.' But that is of course silly. They are both correct solutions to the problem. Given the data presented, both fit the sequence. Not every problem has a single solution (and often you cannot be expected to be able to list all of them). That should be doubly obvious if you are talking about the field of mathematics.
You cannot from the data presented, insist that only the more complicated answer is the only correct one. Trying to do that is actually far more wrong, than simply giving the simple and obvious answers.
I'm not sure you do either. I mean, you've been one of the many talking heads with law degrees who have struggled to understand that Giuliani & friends should not be judged based on the strength of their interpretations of Madison v. Marbury or whatever, but rather on the approval polls that Yankee Clapper mysteriously stopped posting last year.
You and others had no problem citing the same infirm, potentially errant surveys back in 2015-16, when declaring that Hillary Clinton could not and would not improve on the existing 2012 vote margin among women. But she did improve on it.
Mouse, #121:
Kevin McCarthy will have the GOP House's full support for as long as he wants to.
In other sports news, the White House has designated itself a giant safe space for special snowflakes offended by the big mean black men in helmets. Note: the link and quote are from different sites, but same difference.
I recall a fair bit of noise about it, but three things make it very different from Trump:
-Bush was on his way out of office. And while he lost and wasn't particularly popular, he was widely respected as a statesman and as a decent person. Trump is not respected at all. His base worships him, many Republicans tolerate him, but nobody respects him. That goes a long way in a political affair.
-Bush had recently sent troops to Somalia and media attention was leaning there.
-There is a fundamental difference between pardoning another and pardoning oneself.
But don't listen to me, listen to the DOJ, which said that Nixon couldn't self pardon
Wow, you must have gone to super law school!
Only if you have a glass eye that is not otherwise being used.
Here is my new mantra for most of these things
Before 105 existed, in fact.
He's such a pussy, he should grab himself.
Well it means that his argument can't be immediately dismissed out of hand. Like if he said "congress CAN make a law that restricts practice of a religion"
But it's a pretty weak argument that he can actually pardon himself, as that is not explicitly said either. Seems pretty likely it didn't occur to him. Since it took 200 years before someone even tried it.
I do think there is a reasonably strong argument that POTUS can't be indicted (he has to be impeached and removed first)
EDIT: I'll concede that his generous use of bold print was decidedly obnoxious.
Thanks, that'll bring me around to supporting Trump. At first I was worried that he was a megalomaniac authoritarian, but if there was an article about Hillary two years ago, that makes all the difference :)
https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/a-president-hillary-clinton-could-pardon-herself-and-congress-might-be-helpless-to-act/
https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/if-hillary-is-indicted-president-clinton-could-pardon-herself-and-congress-might-be-helpless/
This reads like one of those straightdope or xkcd/what-if articles. Like how exactly would you die if you stopped eating and how long would it take? How quickly would you die if the sun stopped burning, etc.
I read the linked article and unfortunately Ross didn't follow up with Mangiante on her comment. Someone needs to ask her whether her husband was ever in close contact with Israeli officials. Because if not, then Meuller needs to be called out. His focus (obsession?) on Israel is decidedly unhealthy and noxious.
FTFA
Gee, ya think?
Well you would certainly know, JE.
as is often the case, the "surprise" affirming view - written by Kagan and joined by Breyer, may be the most interesting in what seemed like a difficult case:
"It is a general rule that [religious and philosophical]
objections do not allow business owners and other actors
in the economy and in society to deny protected persons
equal access to goods and services under a neutral and
generally applicable public accommodations law.”
But in upholding that principle, state actors cannot
show hostility to religious views; rather, they must give
those views “neutral and respectful consideration.”
I join the Court’s opinion in full because I believe
the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not satisfy that
obligation."
Looking for information here, because I know I don't understand.
How the NRA transformed from marksmen to lobbyists
For a newspaper article it's fairly comprehensive, and the graphics alone make it well worth a look.
No, that's not the case. The Constitution places no such restriction on the President's pardon power, and it has been used without a conviction in many instances, even if post-conviction relief is more common. When Jimmy Carter granted amnesty to the Vietnam era draft evaders, for example, he included many who hadn't been convicted since they fled the country.
What a moron. This really is stupid watergate.
It wasn't in 1993 what it is now, so I'm justified. You kids and your easy route to LAX.
The hilarious thing is that this article goes even further for Hillary than anyone -- even Trump supporters, even Trump's lawyers -- has gone for Trump. It argues that a hypothetical President Hillary, indicted after she took office, cannot even be impeached after a self-pardon for crimes that she carried out before she took office. Applied to Trump that would mean that even if he did collude with the Russians to win the election and Mueller charged him with crimes stemming from that pre-election behavior and then Trump pardoned himself, he nevertheless cannot be impeached for that:
No, that's not correct.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main