Leaderboard

Is that what Hurt did when the two Castle kids transferred to GS? Pretty sure he has no problem accepting kids who transfer in from other schools.

thank you guys for all the help with coaching vacancies, you are all helping out so much more than you know keeping our site updates on the changes. WCGrad92

Why are you going to disrespect Barry Duff like that?

I’m often an expert in hyperbole but I think this may have been the most amazing weekend of playoff football I’ve ever seen.

$0.00. Only recruiting by Hurley comes on the field.

Name the last two who transferred to Castle who also played at Lidy stadium? You have time, I’m in line at Starbucks in Newburgh.

Have to talk to his Agent first and work out the $10 million/4 year contract

That is a dumb conclusion to draw but I'll consider the source.

Two hard hitting defensive battles today. Loved it. A 13-10 victory is much better than some 45-42 piece of crap.

One of my youth coaches back in the day was a bit cruder in the technique. He always told us to watch the guy's balls because he wasn't going anywhere without them.

I love how I make a half tongue in cheek comment about country club sports and then only say the top teams of each conference are usually pretty close. immediately after I said this: mater Dei fans enter chat* “are you disrespecting us? Is wrestling a country club sport? How dare anyone say they can beat MD wrestling (even though nobody did that)” 😂😂😂 holy smokes….we get it…Mater Dei wrestling is great. Do you really need to chip your own shoulders? lmao

I think he was being sarcastic.

Why are you looking for that information in a thread about youth football and rugby?

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congresss-16-committee-claims-absolute The committee did not deny that it failed to meet these requirements. Obviously, they could not argue that, given that the plan they created with JPMorgan and its lawyer, Loretta Lynch, was designed to ensure that Budowich have no time to obtain a judicial ruling before his bank records were handed over. Instead, the committee's response is they do not have to comply with this law. “The Act restricts only agencies and departments of the United States, and the Select Committee is neither,” the committee's lawyer contended. In fact, they explicitly argued that these safeguards were meant to be imposed only on the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, but were intended to exempt Congress even when, as here, they are clearly engaged in investigating private citizens for potential crimes. “Multiple provisions of the statute underscore that Congress intended 'Government authority' to mean an executive branch agency or department,” the committee's lawyers wrote in an assertion of power breathtaking in its scope and limitlessness. All of the other committee's arguments are similarly designed to bestow on itself absolute and unlimited power in how it investigates private citizens, and to insist that the judiciary is without power to impose limits on it. The committee insists, for instance, that it can investigate anyone it wants in connection with 1/6 even if its motive is not to enact new laws and even if the documents it seeks (Budowich's financial records) have no relationship to any proposed new laws. That is because, it says, “Congressional committees are not required to identify a specific piece of legislation in advance of conducting an investigation of the pertinent facts. It is sufficient that a committee’s investigation concerns a subject on which legislation 'could be had.'" Such a principle, if accepted, would destroy any limits on Congress’s ability to investigate citizens (clearly, it was possible for the McCarthy-era Congressional investigations to lead to new laws even though, as the Supreme Court twice ruled when striking them down, that was clearly not its primary purpose). But Judge Boasberg nonetheless accepted the committee's argument on the ground that an appellate court had already ruled that the 1/6 Committee had a valid legislative purpose and he was therefore bound by that decision. The committee's other arguments are even more extreme: namely, that “the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause provides absolute immunity to Members and committees when performing legislative acts" and that “sovereign immunity prohibits litigation against Congress to which it has not consented, and no such consent has been.” That would mean that the 1/6 Committee could literally do whatever it wanted to citizens, and no court would have the right even to review the legality or constitutionality of what it is doing let alone put a stop to it. What happened during the first War on Terror — and so many other events that were perceived as traumatic — is instructive here. So many Americans were so horrified by the carnage of that day that, for years, many did not care or want to hear about legal niceties, constitutional limits or civil liberties regarding the government's actions. Anything the government did in the name of responding to or retaliating for 9/11 became inherently justified, and anyone who objected — no matter the principles cited — was deemed to be on the side of the terrorists. The same dynamic is prevailing here. There are serious constitutional limits on the ability of Congress to investigate private citizens. It is blatantly abusive to scheme with JPMorgan and its counsel Loretta Lynch to ensure that a citizen has no time to seek judicial relief regarding the committee's attempt to obtain mounds of his personal and financial records. And, in general, the committee has been on a rampage targeting not only Trump officials or people who engaged in criminal behavior at the Capitol on January 6 but a wide group of citizens whose only crime appears to be their political beliefs and associations — exactly what the Supreme Court cited when striking down the excesses of Congress’s McCarthy-era probes of citizens. But with the media overwhelmingly cheering anything done in the name of stopping the Trump movement and those who supported 1/6 in any way, all of these civil liberties concerns and constitutional protections are run roughshod over in the name of safety. The latest arguments from the Congressional 1/6 Committee amount to little more than an assertion of unfettered power for Adam Schiff, Liz Cheney and the rest of the committee members to dig into the lives of anyone they want without limits. Yep. McCarthy-era type terrorism of United State citizens is still happening today, courtesy of this out of control 1/6 Committee. Chilling.

I have taken a deep dive on independent councils of late. The article is painting a very similar picture. I’m curious if any of our legal types could give us an opinion on IC’s. I was very ignorant of them, just assuming that’s the way things are. After my deep dive, I don’t believe them to be constitutional or morally right.