Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Maurile Tremblay

Admin
  • Posts

    46,971
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Everything posted by Maurile Tremblay

  1. About that: Trump is trying to get Big Lie promoters chosen to run the 2024 election.
  2. Accepting the results depending on what they find is partisan hackery. The results should be accepted or ignored based on whether the process is good or bad, not based on what the outcome is. In this case, the process is bad, so the principled course of action is to reject the results before knowing what they are. (If the process were good, the principled course of action would be to accept the results before knowing what they are.)
  3. They originally said two weeks. Now they're saying one week, so they're apparently about halfway done.
  4. We've already gone through the "court of law" process. This is the epilogue to that, not the prologue.
  5. That's basically in two weeks, which is consistent with their initial estimate.
  6. Lying about elections and stuff. With any of the countries I listed, there shouldn't be much argument. Look them up individually on Wikipedia and you'll see how the right-leaning parties in each of those countries have trended toward becoming anti-democratic in recent years.
  7. I think roadkill knows what democracy is. But I agree that his statement about democracy being threatened by the global right was overbroad. The problem isn't global. It seems limited to a few countries like Hungary, Russia, Brazil, the United States, Turkey, Poland, the Philippines ... I may be forgetting a few, but it's a small minority of the world's democracies where the major right-leaning party has gone off the deep end.
  8. Apparently his associates have given conflicting accounts of where he is (he's hospitalized with covid, he was in a car accident, he's being treated for exhaustion and dehydration), but given that nobody can reach him or pinpoint his location, there's suspicion that he took the defense money and fled the country.
  9. The door may be open to that if this Texas law is upheld as being constitutionally permissible. So far, it hasn't been. (And I doubt it will be.)
  10. Politico has a surprisingly good analysis of the abortion case: https://www.politico.com/amp/news/magazine/2021/09/03/texas-abortion-law-scotus-roe-casey-509490
  11. Footballguys won't. I don't know why Twitter would.
  12. Hot take: It's about time we switched to an auction format.
  13. After reading a few news summaries about this, I thought the majority opinion was making a really stupid distinction. The Texas law is obviously inconsistent with Roe and Casey in effect. I thought the majority might be saying that the Texas law isn't like Roe because Roe was based on the 14th Amendment, which restricts only state actors. This new Texas law, in contrast, involves no state actors because it will be privately enforced. That would be an extremely stupid distinction because it eviscerates all constitutional rights. Suppose Florida makes a law imposing a $10,000 fine on anyone who criticizes the governor. Obviously unconstitutional. Does it become constitutional if the "fine" is payable to some private plaintiff instead of the state? No. Same with abortion. The state action is in imposing the payment obligation, not merely in collecting it. It's unconstitutional either way. But now that I've read the (anonymous) majority opinion (as well as the dissents), that's not what the majority is doing. Instead, it's saying that there isn't really a case or controversy yet because nobody has been ordered to pay $10,000 to anybody. Before there's a case or controversy, you can sue a government official to prevent enforcement of an obviously unconstitutional law, but there's no procedural mechanism for suing the public at large over enforcing it. (I guess the plaintiffs are suing a bunch of state judges, but judges who may preside over civil cases aren't the kind of government officials in charge of enforcement that current precedent contemplates suing --- or at least it's not clear that they are.) The dissents argue -- convincingly, IMO -- that it's a distinction without a difference. If a law is obviously unconstitutional under current precedent, a court should be able to enjoin its enforcement ahead of time even if there isn't any particular government official to sue over it. I think there's a good argument for modifying the law regarding prior restraint here, allowing courts to enjoin enforcement of obviously unconstitutional laws* without regard to whether they will be enforced by public officials or private citizens. But I also think it's fun that, in this instance, the pro-choice side must argue for modifying the law while the pro-life side is arguing for sticking to precedent. They'll each reverse their attitudes about that when we get to the substance of whether abortion is a protected right. ___ *I mean obviously unconstitutional in the sense of obviously violating current precedent that is binding on lower courts. It remains to be seen whether Roe and Casey will be ultimately upheld, but that's not really germane to the present disposition of this case.
  14. Anyone got a link to the denial of an emergency injunction against enforcing the Texas abortion law?
  15. On many political issues, there are two sides. Not this one. The audit is an unambiguous farce.
  16. The Texans should start Watson or trade him for whatever they can get. It's ridiculous to bench him while he's not injured or suspended.
  17. Or it's proof that none of the challengers seem less bad than the incumbent.
  18. I'm not sure it was a great idea for the Democrats to eschew putting anybody reasonable on the ballot of challengers. Kevin Faulconer (R) seems like the best choice on the list. That's probably who Democrats should vote for, IMO, rather than Paffrath. Newsome is going to get 49% of the vote and Larry Elder is going to get 18%, and Elder will become governor. Maybe not the best system in the world. Whatever the outcome, I think it's safe to say that the Democrats bungled the strategy here.
  19. Let's not dismiss this possibility until we've done a bipartisan forensic appraisal of it.
  20. Why would there be a news section in the yearbook? In fact, in 2021, why would there be a yearbook?
×
  • Create New...