N.O. via West-Cal

I have not really tried to think it through at each position, but I doubt I would have much of a beef with there not being a Saint. My hope--and I think it is a reasonable one--is that by the end of the year Olave, Etienne, and even Shough are considered at or very near to the top 10 of their positions. As we well know, everything changes if you have a top 10 QB.

“I strongly believe they are unfit to have a say in how the country is governed, but in our system they have the ability not only to vote, but to run for office and win.”

This is what every despot anywhere would say. The genius of our governmental form is that prevents you or—even worse from my perspective as a conservative—similarly minded people with different politics from having their way. Instead, minority rights are largely protected and other significant majorities or compromise required to make most big changes. This is even more so now thanks to the Supreme Court bringing us back to our proper understanding of the constitution by doing away with Chevron deference (and similar cases). Also, it is worth noting that the more Conservative Party currently controls the executive branch and both houses of Congress. Lose the doom and gloom. It’s contrary to the facts and unbecoming.

“Nothing to do with the Constitution...juat trying seem impartial.”

This is far from what I see when I review the opinions. For one thing, the justices vary a great deal with how they see the issues and clearly reflect deeply held beliefs about the constitution and jurisprudence. Which justices do you accuse of being in on the deal to fix results to seem impartial? Surely not Alito, Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, or Jackson. The truth is the results—which have often favored conservative positions—are arrived at by nine people who see things differently.

I hear you on how Trump “sounds,” but as long as he isn’t doing anything harmful, such as instituting price controls, this is probably just good, cynical populist politics. I have to believe he understands supply and demand.

As a matter of substantive policy, the text of the EO makes sense, but we already have case law to the contrary on the meaning of “Election Day.” I think you understate the value a statute would have and overstate the hostility of the courts to this administration. Are you aware that left- enter sources like The Atlantic and NPR frequently complain that the current Supreme Court is a mere rubber stamp for the Trump presidency? Of course, they’re wrong, but the point is that Trump has plenty of wins in the courts.

Sanders is exactly the type of QB I would not want. First, I don't think he will ever be better than Shough so I don't want to trade assets or picks that could help Shough thrive. Second, we have an adequate back in Rattler. If anything, I would want an older vet on the roster to help mentor Shough and be able to step in for a short term, not a young player who has shown he can be a distraction. We are precisely the type of team that should not trade for Sanders.

Putting aside the merits of the underlying issue, I am intrigued by the judge's reasoning and at least preliminarily think she is correct. The president as chief executive does not allow him to encroach on the legislative branch's powers or defy the law. Here, the Constitution gives the states and Congress power over elections, so can the president unilaterally require things that the states and Congress have not decided to require? The SAVE Act would obviate a lot of this discussion if it is passed and signed, but what is the argument for the president being able to do this on his own via EO?

"I have some family that live on Grand Bayou. His wharf is almost directly north of the runway. It’s badass to watch from there catching fish and drinking."

This could be the most American thing I've read all week. Anyone who experiences what you describe is living. :usa:

“ They were stacked in 1776, and look what happened.”

Yes, and it was a road game for England the, too.

"There's a big big difference between unwed parents, and absent parents."

This is true in terms of the quality of individual situations, but by and large the data for unwed versus married parents give you the information you need to consider and potentially address social pathologies. This is because most cohabitating couples having children are married (about 90% is the number I have seen).

“His sin was a jurisdiction that would find against him no matter the facts.”

All the more reason to have statutes of limitation.