carpandean

What, nobody YouTubes anymore?

In a compilation of 34 mock drafts, Nylander: Went 4th in 1 Went 5th in 2 Went 6th in 11 Went 7th in 7 Was available at 8 in 13.

I took one of those long quizzes that matches your policies with candidates' and despite having many of the original Republican and all three of the original Democrats in it, the top-2, by far, were Libertarian candidates (btw, Hillary was second-to-last.) However, even if they get on the NY ballot, I know that voting for them (Johnson, most likely) would be symbolic, at best. Unfortunate, but true.

Me, too. Which reminds me ... I will be unhappy if/when they put ads on the jerseys ... I will stop watching if they put them on the front of the helmets:

Probably been posted before, but ... NHL to Test Uniform Ads During 2016 World Cup.

Damn all those sororities that wouldn't let me join because I'm not a woman. I just wanted to join in their pillow fi ... uh ... lifelong bonds of sisterhood.

You really want a cause to get behind? There have been an estimated 17,000 deaths this year (88,000 annually) related to the 21st Amendment. Unlike guns (you can argue the extent, but the example above shows that it's more than zero), there is no other benefit (assuming you aren't cleaning wounds with scotch, vodka, etc) of alcohol than entertainment (and/or self-medication.) Bring back the 18th, I say! I'm not saying that one can't argue for both; just pointing out that you are picking your cause for other reasons than the numbers and benefits. Also note that there are on the order of 100 million gun owners in America, who own hundreds of millions of firearms. The New York Safe Act resulted in a very small percentage of the estimated number of "assault weapons" in the state being registered and many (most?) of those were by law enforcement personnel, who really had to register (and had less reason not to.) Law enforcement agencies are refusing to enforce it. Most (81%) of the Safe Act related arrests are in New York City, which already had stronger laws in place before it was enacted. Additionally, many of the related arrests were for things that were already illegal (for example, the AW rule used to have a two-feature test, but now has a one-feature test, so having a full-featured AR-15 was already illegal here.) What do you think will happen if they repeal the 2nd Amendment? At best, you'll get wide-spread disobedience (with likely many 10's of millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens choosing not to comply and instantly becoming felons); at worst, well ...

That might be true if she were to stick to them after receiving the nomination. However, if she's willing to swing left to beat him, what's to say that she won't swing back towards center to win the general? I have a feeling that she and Trump will be meeting in the middle this fall.

It's kinda like the 2-point system in the NHL. Hate it on principle, but with 82 games and adjusted strategies, it's not really going to change the ranking much. Of course, a 3-point system wouldn't take a constitutional change, so ...

^ Looks like Toronto. Charts updated.

If I'm not mistaken, Risto had already been out there for most/all of the 4-on-3 up to that point and then was put right back for the last 2 seconds.

That pretty much covers it.

Puttin' on the Ritz!

Yes, I always update the first post with the current charts.

I come here a bit ... I'm here ... uh ... you know ... from time to time.

Yup. Right-Left doesn't do a good enough job categorizing people, but more-and-more is does a good job defining the promises (as noted, most unlikely to happen) of politicians. No Republican candidate could hope to win the nomination, even with the most fiscally conservative policies, if he/she were to say something even remotely left socially like, say, "you know what, allowing same sex couples from entering into a legal contract that happens to be called 'marriage' does not affect any faith's right to determine who they marry 'under God', so I say let them do it." Yet, I know a lot of 'the People' who feel that way about both policies. The closest you can get is a Libertarian, because they often reach the same end, socially, even though they do it for different reasons.

Reagan nominated Kennedy in November of 1987 -- he was confirmed in 1988 -- and that was after two nominees were not confirmed. As noted, Fortas was a justice in 1965 and was nominate for Chief Justice in 1968. Brennan was a recess appointment and was also a Democrat (Eisenhower was a Republican up for reelection.) Murphy was nominated January 4, so yes, but just barely. Cardozo was a Democrat appointed by a Republican up for reelection. Not exactly a strong history (assuming Obama isn't going to nominate a right-leaning candidate) in the last 100 years.

Actually, so far, they have just suggested that they might. :P

I agree on all points, to a degree (I even edited a note on #2), but ... (a) there is a little difference between your hypotheticals in #1 than holding a press conference to specifically call for a ban on any future Bush nominee (something that actually could have happened in the last 18 months, unlike France invading Kansas or North Korea putting a man on the moon.) (b) Your #3 likely would have made it an effective majority for any nominee who wasn't considered a moderate.

Like Schumer did with Bush in July 2007 (equivalent of July 2015 in this election cycle)? It never mattered in that case, as no seat was vacated during Bush's final 18 months, but he called for a block of any Bush nominee. Those condemning McConnell have to ask themselves whether they condemned Schumer back then. Likewise, those supporting McConnell have to ask themselves whether they supported Schumer (though, you could argue that 18 months is significantly longer than 11 months, and conversely that a hypothetical opening is different than a real one.) Maybe. Did Schumer's stance hurt Obama? (Admittedly, he was in a different position than McConnell is, but he was/is a senior-ranking Democratic Senator.)

The longest from opening to being filled, though, was quite a bit more than 3 months (example above was 8 months and I haven't looked back that far.) I agree that they need to follow the process, but they certainly would be within their rights to not just pass the first nominee (assuming it would be the opposite extreme from Scalia) and if subsequent nominees don't move toward center, it would become a showdown. What would be interesting would be if the seat is still unfilled in November. If the Democrats were to win, there would be no pressure on Obama to put forth anyone even remotely conservative (might even wait to get himself nominated), but if the Republicans were to win, there would be a lot of incentive for the Congress to push of the decision for a short while longer.

I was thinking about this some more and I would tell Elizabeth Warren three things: 1) Obama won by 126 votes (out of 538 possible.) If she has read Article II, then she should know that. 2) The people also voted for the members of Congress. They "spoke" there, as well. And Article II, Section II states "the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments." 3) There is plenty of history of Presidential nominations being blocked by Congress for numerous reasons. As quoted, Article II does say that the President is the one to make nominations, but requires "the consent of the Congress" to make an appointment. Denying a nomination for justifiable reasons (there have been many and varied ones throughout history) is Constitutional, especially if the "advice ... of Congress" is not solicited, much less listened to. I agree that this would be a long time for the court to have a vacancy and that there probably should be an appointment made within Obama's term. However, I fully expect and would have no problem with the Congress blocking at least one nominee before this actually happens. It's equally wrong to say that they will block any nominee he puts forward or that they have to approve any one he puts forward. One of the consequences/benefits of having a split government is that extreme results (be they new laws or appointees) do not just go through. The Congress won't get its replacement extreme conservative nominee, but they also do not have approve an extreme progressive one.

Reagan nominated Kennedy on November 30, 1987, which technically was not in his last year in office (last year before the election, yes, barely, but not the last year in office.) And that was after his first two nominees did not go through (one was rejected by the Senate and the other smoked weed.) The seat, itself, was opened when Powell retired on June 26, 1987. That was with over eighteen months left in Reagan's term, as opposed to less than eleven left in Obama's.

There are some interesting potential outcomes in these races, as far as how the systems work. Sanders has received more voter-driven delegates in both states so far. However, due to the combination of six coin flips (all going Clinton's way) and the superdelegates, he has (or likely will) receive fewer delegates from each of them. What happens if Clinton wins on patterns like that? On the other side, Trump could have many, many more victories like NH, where he has a large lead, but not a majority, and then not end up getting the nomination (not sure on the details of how it would be decided, but I remember hearing that was a possibility.) Could we see Sanders and Trump receiving more voter support, only to have Clinton and Bush (or some other "establishment" candidate) receive their parties' nominations?

Yes, both the final number to get in and the fact that several teams were below that pace halfway in are pretty normal. Last year was a bit of a fluke. My point was that there were more teams off of the 93-point pace (all bunched together) that year than this year, so this year really isn't anything unusual. It will likely take 93 points (give-or-take) to get in again.