Supreme Court vacancy

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The article needed a login to the WSJ. Bummers

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

WSJ is tricky. I literally was able to read the whole article, then it brought up subscribing, after I was already done reading. I don't have a subscription to WSJ. I assumed that article was free. Ignore my link. My apologies.

The article was basically about Harry Reid changing the rules to get some local DC judges appointed, and McConnell told him it would not work out well. I don't even like Turtle. And not trying to justify any action by anyone after that. That was the just the jist of the article. Basically was a piece about the state we're in now, slanted more towards blaming the left a little more than the right. And that is why I offered that I would read any article from the other perspective.

Edit - Posting a WSJ article is like posting an NFL.com mock draft article. No one actually gets to read it.

[SunnySide]

Apparently the SCOTUS declined to hear a case re whether Pennsylvania ballots received up to 3 days after the election should be counted. It appears the PA Governor (D) requested a 3 day extension bc of COVID. State republicans challenged saying under the PA constitution only the legislature can change State election laws.

But it appears the SCOTUS could very well be asked to decide after the election.
For now, PA officials will keep any ballots rec'd after election day separate.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sup...after-election

--------------------------

large edit by me, I was wrong on most of my thoughts .... more information has come to my attention man

I thought the US Constitution gives States the power to decide how to run the elections in their State, but apparently the US Constitution gives "state legislatures" that power not "states".

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Only in Bizarro G1 Land does your post make any sense

No , only trumpetts refuse to accept it.

[Giantone]

...................and still a republican and that piss's you off, a republican who hasn't drank the kool aid.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by Giantone

...................and still a republican and that piss's you off, a republican who hasn't drank the kool aid.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Hey guys, I've actually been a Democrat this whole time. Never was a Republican and did not re-register as a libertarian.

I just didn't drink the anti-trump koolaid.

[SunnySide]

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against the NCAA in a landmark antitrust case that specifically challenged the association’s ability to have national limits on benefits for athletes that are related to education, but more broadly had raised doubts about its ability to limit benefits at all.

The ruling will end the association’s nationwide limits on education-related benefits athletes can receive for playing college sports.

Athletes playing Division I men’s or women’s basketball or Bowl Subdivision football will be able to receive benefits from their schools that include cash or cash-equivalent awards based on academics or graduation.

Among the other benefits that schools also can offer are scholarships to complete undergraduate or graduate degrees at any school and paid internships after athletes have completed their collegiate sports eligibility.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ng/5237656001/

Now schools can offer cash benefits to "student" athletes including money for laptops, paid internships etc. My first impression is that the big schools can do a lot more paying of booster money to lure "student" athletes.

I think this just makes the disparity even more pronounced. No way a Maryland alumni dark money can compete with the Michigans and Ohio States in terms of program money.

I guess the Alabama "Sports Cars for Football Starters" program is now legal. After all .. the kids gotta get to school somehow.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against the NCAA in a landmark antitrust case that specifically challenged the association’s ability to have national limits on benefits for athletes that are related to education, but more broadly had raised doubts about its ability to limit benefits at all.

The ruling will end the association’s nationwide limits on education-related benefits athletes can receive for playing college sports.

Athletes playing Division I men’s or women’s basketball or Bowl Subdivision football will be able to receive benefits from their schools that include cash or cash-equivalent awards based on academics or graduation.

Among the other benefits that schools also can offer are scholarships to complete undergraduate or graduate degrees at any school and paid internships after athletes have completed their collegiate sports eligibility.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ng/5237656001/

Now schools can offer cash benefits to "student" athletes including money for laptops, paid internships etc. My first impression is that the big schools can do a lot more paying of booster money to lure "student" athletes.

I think this just makes the disparity even more pronounced. No way a Maryland alumni dark money can compete with the Michigans and Ohio States in terms of program money.

I guess the Alabama "Sports Cars for Football Starters" program is now legal. After all .. the kids gotta get to school somehow.

Yeah not a fan. To me a free education worth(depending on the school) is 80 to 150 thousand dollars ,how is that not worth while?

[SunnySide]

I 100% side with the weird unbalance of these schools and TV networks making billions of dollars in revenue and the guys who go to Alabama to play football or UNC for basketball are employed athletes and not students in way shape or form.

But the idea of paying athletes has some many red flags.

- wont this just allow and encourage even more under table payments?
- wont this just make Alabama recruiting even more dominant?
- will non revenue sports be cut out now bc even more money is going to 5 star football and basketball players?
- how does a school like Maryland compete with booster/alumni/program money of OSU or UM? Let only the even smaller schools like Nebraska etc


Will be interesting to see.

[SunnySide]

SC deciding the Mississippi ban on abortions after 15 weeks.

Don’t worry about McConnell stealing a seat they said. I honor precedent kavanaugh said.

If the SC breaks roe v wade … it is a political branch and if the SC is now a political branch of the legislature then its broken and I say go ahead and add 69 new justices and make it the mockery it may be becoming.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

SC deciding the Mississippi ban on abortions after 15 weeks.

Don’t worry about McConnell stealing a seat they said. I honor precedent kavanaugh said.

If the SC breaks roe v wade … it is a political branch and if the SC is now a political branch of the legislature then its broken and I say go ahead and add 69 new justices and make it the mockery it may be becoming.

+1

There is nothing in any branch of government that isn't immune to partisan politics anymore.

Thanks Drumpf.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

+1



There is nothing in any branch of government that isn't immune to partisan politics anymore.



Thanks Drumpf.

The liberals made the Supreme Court partisan long ago with Roe as a litmus test, the conservatives followed suit quickly. This is simply the result of 2 generations of legal abortion and the bitter moral divide that ensued.





Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The liberals made the Supreme Court partisan long ago with Roe as a litmus test, the conservatives followed suit quickly. This is simply the result of 2 generations of legal abortion and the bitter moral divide that ensued.





Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Ah so you agree, the SC is partisan as fuck? Seems like the only thing we disagree on is how long it's been partisan.

Cool - look forward to the day when we tilt the scales back our way since things like precedent are out the window.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreak...eb2x&context=3

This girl sums up how I feel about the bible pretty well.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

Ah so you agree, the SC is partisan as fuck? Seems like the only thing we disagree on is how long it's been partisan.



Cool - look forward to the day when we tilt the scales back our way since things like precedent are out the window.



https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreak...eb2x&context=3



This girl sums up how I feel about the bible pretty well.

Shouldn't we also remember that roe v wade broke at least 100 years of established law?

The question for me always comes down to who should be protected more by the power of the government, an adult woman who makes a choice with potential consequences (not talking rape or other non consensual acts) or a potential human life that has no ability of self defense.

But the issue in the media is always liberal good conservative bad.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

SC deciding the Mississippi ban on abortions after 15 weeks.

Don’t worry about McConnell stealing a seat they said. I honor precedent kavanaugh said.

If the SC breaks roe v wade … it is a political branch and if the SC is now a political branch of the legislature then its broken and I say go ahead and add 69 new justices and make it the mockery it may be becoming.

To be clear all the Mississippi case would do is the reset the states power of being able to regulate abortions from 24 to 15 weeks. Over 95% of abortions occur prior to 15 weeks. I'm more interested in seeing if the Court clarifies/rectifies the health of the mother loophole that Roe created and in many places was subsequently abused.