Leaderboard

In my opinion- Tecumseh has absolutely NO leverage to say what they want/don’t want. How they’ve been allowed to operate as a member of the PAC for this long with basically dropping out of football is beyond me. They are either in this merger, or OUT all together in every sport. Every time I read this thread I just get ticked off...wrong message to send to kids/program- but I’ve been down that road. Carry on

Agree - Even IF the Federal Government was to fund the special Olympics, it sure shouldn't be under the Department of Education.

Apparently the SWAT team was dispatched to deal with this level of lunacy by parents who choose not to vaccinate their kids......Because they certainly must be nuts..... The doctor feared something that turned out to be a glorified sinus infection.......(Something a vaccine wouldn't cover anyway)...... Yep - better send SWAT in....

Yes, but substantially less than the home side.

I would agree the MIC is a great conference and easily the best in Indiana, but the best player on the best MIC team isn't automatically the best player in the state. Both are great players, but Bell wasn't "hands down" better than Kizer and finishing second in the voting wasn't a "crime".

Showed this to my spouse. She just rolled her eyes then let loose with a good loud crackler. I was impressed.

Dangers of Growing Support for Court-Packing: http://reason.com/volokh/2019/03/20/dangers-of-growing-support-for-court-pac Similarly, Democratic Senator and presidential candidate Corey Booker "caution people about doing things that become a tit for tat throughout history... So when the Democrats expand it to 11, 12 judges, when Republicans have it, they expand it to 15 judges." Booker and Tribe are right. And indeed these sorts of structural concerns are exactly what led a Democratic-controlled Congress to bury Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1937 court-packing plan - the last serious attempt to expand the size of the Court in order to shift its ideology. Critics rightly feared that court-packing would create a Supreme Court subservient to whatever party controlled the presidency and Congress at the time. As Democratic Senator Burton Wheeler put it in a speech on FDR's plan: For what it is worth, my opposition to court-packing is is not limited to plans put forward by liberal Democrats. I first wrote about the subject when prominent conservative law professor Steven Calabresi and his coauthor Shams Hirji put forward a plan for Republicans to pack the lower federal courts back in 2017. It was a bad idea when raised by some on the right two years ago, and it's no better now when it is gathering steam on the left. Undermining judicial independence might be a feature of court-packing rather than a bug if you believe that judicial review does more harm than good, in any event (as do a few legal scholars on both the right and the left). Such people contend we would have a a freer and more just society if the courts let the political branches of government do as they please. I believe that is a dangerous delusion, for reasons I summarized here: Some liberals who value judicial review generally might believe that conservative judges will not act to curb the abuses of Trump and other Republican presidents. If so, it might be better to risk blowing up the judiciary than allow conservatives to continue to have a majority on the Supreme Court. It is indeed true that conservative judges have sometimes let Trump get away with violations of the Constitution, most notably in the egregious travel ban case. But conservative Republican judicial appointees (along with liberal Democratic ones) have done much to curb the administration's excesses in other important cases. Notable examples include the numerous rulings against Trump's attempts to coerce sanctuary cities, the recent Ninth Circuit decision against the administration's efforts to severely restrict migrants' opportunities to apply for asylum (authored by prominent conservative judge Jay Bybee), and a variety of decisions on such important issues as DACA, the administration's family-separation policy (struck down by a Republican-appointeed judge who ordered the administration to reunite the separated children with their families), and freedom of speech. If Trump had had a free hand to pack the courts as he likes, things would likely have been much worse. And the same goes for future presidents inclined to abuse their power. Some on the left argue that the Democrats can expand the size of the Court without generating retaliation in kind by Republicans if they repackage court-packing as "court balancing" or some other similar euphemism. This is unlikely to work, for reasons I discussed here. Those attracted to such ideas should consider whether they themselves would forego retaliation the GOP tried to pull a similar trick. Fortunately, the left is far from monolithic when it comes to court-packing. As the above quotes by Laurence Tribe and Corey Booker reveal, some liberals do recognize the danger. Other notable liberal critics of court-packing include former Obama White House Counsel Bob Bauer, columnist Damon Linker (who calls it "the dumbest Democratic idea yet") and well-known legal scholar Richard Primus. Whether Democrats actually move forward with court-packing the next time they have a chance to do so depends in large part on who becomes the next Democratic president and whether he or she decides to make this an important part of the party's agenda. Some Democrats are instead promoting other, far more defensible, reforms to the Supreme Court. For example, Corey Booker has called for imposing 18-year term limits on the justices. I have no problem with that idea, which enjoys widespread (though certainly not universal) support from legal scholars on different sides of the political spectrum, such as Sanford Levinson on the left, and Steve Calabresi on the right. It would limit the power of individual justices without giving the president and Congress a blank check to pack the Court as they like. Beto O'Rourke's plan to increase the size of the court to 15 justices (mentioned above) is far less problematic than standard court-packing proposals. Because it would require a balance between five Democratic and five Republican justices, with five more chosen by the first ten, it would not enable either the president or Congress to simply pack the Court with their own minions. There are, however, many practical problems with the plan. For example, it is not clear how the Democratic and Republican justices would be selected. In addition, if independents or third parties ever gain a significant foothold in Congress, they would be shut out of the judicial selection process. O'Rourke's proposal would also require a constitutional amendment to enact, which I think is highly unlikely to happen. On the other side of the political spectrum, GOP Senator Marco Rubio plans to propose a constitutional amendment limiting the Supreme Court's membership to nine justices, which would prevent future court-packing. I am happy to support any such amendment. But I doubt that it can get enacted without some sort of quid pro quo for the Democrats. If it were up to me, I would be willing to pay a price to remove the danger of court-packing forever. But most Republican politician probably think otherwise. For the moment, therefore, the main barrier to court-packing is the longstanding political norm against it. It has lasted for almost 150 years, and survived an assault by Franklin D. Roosevelt, one of the most popular presidents in American history. The next Democratic president is unlikely to be as commanding a figure as FDR was. On the other hand, the Democratic Party is arguably more ideologically cohesive now than in the 1930s, and the relative youth of the conservative Supreme Court justices (combined with increased life expectancy) makes it less likely that the Democrats can quickly retake control of the Supreme Court by "natural" means in the near future, than was the case back in 1937. And we should not underestimate the risk that liberal anger over the Court could help generate a "crisis of legitimacy" at some point in the next few years, which in turn could pave the way for court-packing. Nonetheless, I am guardedly optimistic that court-packing can still be staved off. But that happy outcome is more likely the more people understand the gravity of the danger.

And Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's push for full on 'democratic' socialism is supposed to grow "American Prosperity", aka the middle class? Socialism kills prosperity, kills the middle class: https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/02/25/5-ways-socialism-destroys-societies-n1800086

And exactly whose fault is that, foxbat? Is everybody supposed to share in that American Prosperity?

Share all you want foxbat, just don't use the force of government to compel others to do that same.

As for your bleeding heart, throwaway statistic of 40 million "hungry" Americans: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/09/08/usda-hunger-charade-food-insecurity-column/71880492/ At Wal-Mart last night they were out of organic bananas, so I had to purchase the non-organic bananas. According to the U.S. government that is "food insecurity." Guess I'm now a statistic. Where is my free stuff?

Ocasio-Cortez Calls For Radical Gun Ban, Champions Confiscation: https://www.dailywire.com/news/44971/ocasio-cortez-calls-radical-gun-ban-champions-ryan-saavedra People with violent criminal records are already prohibited from owning and possessing firearms and bump stocks have already been banned. ...

? Please explain the exact government compulsion(s) taking effect in this photo.

Guess what: Energy production is getting better and cleaner, and not as a result of the fiat of some central-planning committee.: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/natural-gas-energy-production-cleaner/

Study Estimates the Green New Deal to Cost $93 Trillion — That's a Conservative Estimate: https://mises.org/wire/study-estimates-green-new-deal-cost-93-trillion-—-thats-conservative-estimate So, using the above chart and averaging out the three goals that have a variable cost, I come up with $507,010 per house hold over 10 years, or $50,701 dollars a year. I'm sure all of us have this kind of cash laying around, especially elderly households.