carpandean

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.

Maybe, but this is what it looked like two years ago at this time of year: Detroit and Columbus got in with 93 that year (Flyers had 94), while Washington missed with 90.

Haven't updated in a while. Almost brought out the Tank chart.

Only if one is the PowerBall. You need three whites to win anything without the PB. What I don't understand is why the PB, alone, is $4, but the PB + 1 white is ... $4?! There is 1/3 the chance of getting it, but the payout is the same? With PB+2 and 3, which have the same payouts, the odds are at least close (1/580 vs. 1/700.)

It's not that they don't want to win ... like the last two seasons ... but it's probably not their highest priority this season. Right now, they're seeing what they have and who they want to keep going forward. Figuring out what Murray actually bought in Lehner is a big part of that.

Almost as bad as a team whose name is derived from the Dutch word for brown (Bruins) wearing black instead, eh?

What/who defines "rapid" in your new law? Is it a type of action or an actual rounds-per-minute? Theoretical limits or practical ones? If it's RPM, what's the cutoff (and try hard to make it not an arbitrary number, because that generally gets thrown out legally.) Jerry Miculek can empty a six-shot revolver in less than 1 second (360 rpm) and can maintain 4 shots per second (240 rpm) with reloads. There is also a video out there that compares the rate of fire of various weapons at limited range (for example, inside a building.) The fastest? NY reloads. What's that? A bag of cheap revolvers, where "reloading" was done by tossing the empty one aside and pulling out another. It it's action, Australia would love for the US to place heavy restrictions on semi-auto's. Why? Because the development that would come out of US gun manufacturers devoting their efforts toward making better/faster lever-action, pump/slide-action and other manually-operated designs, which are close to semi's already, would be great for them. They have the restriction, but not our industry backing to make improvements. Search for "Troy PAR" to see what restrictive laws in a few US states (NY/CA/CT/etc) already created.

F*** cancer!

As with most things, the truth lies somewhere in between. The first article is overly harsh (to even flat-out incorrect) for many of the reasons that the second one points out. However, the second one does seem to let them off the hook a little too easily on some points. The explanations sometimes feel like a musician trying to tell you why you should like a song for its technical merits.

As Neo asked, do you actually mean automatic or just semi-automatic? Any automatic (full or burst) rifle produced after 1986 is illegal for a civilian to own. Any kit (and even some specific parts, thereof) designed to convert a semi-auto to automatic is illegal for a civilian to own. Many areas (NYS, for example) have made pre-1986 automatics illegal for civilians to own. The limited and declining number of pre-1986 automatic rifles in civilian hands are largely held by collectors, since they command 10's of thousands of dollars (supply = very low, demand = very high) and each one has a federal tax stamp, which means that its owner is registered (transfers require the new owners to get their own federal approval/stamp.)

Bummer :cry:

While I don't mind their current away jerseys (silver pits, trim and piping, in particular) as much as some, these definitely were better. Too bad they never had a real authentic one for sale (the only "Winter Classic" jersey released was just their old whites; no laces, different construction, etc.) Still kicking myself for not buying the full Pominville set (jersey, pant covers and socks) that was on Ebay a year or two later.

That's the only thing that I like about theirs. :P

I'm with Hoss on Montreal's being very good, but not #1 ever. Have to disagree on the Sharks' jersey. Wouldn't be anywhere close to #1 for me. Much better than their current ones, but not great. I do like the Ottawa "O" jerseys, but I wouldn't want to replace the "O" with their current logo. Something more than just a looks-like-a-zero, perhaps, but not their logo. Blackhawks are definitely near the top, as are most of the original-six teams. Canadiens, in general, are always near the top for me. The current Oilers jerseys are really nice, too. I may be a little biased, but ...

I went last night. Game was maybe half full. They had a small contest, the result of which was that every person in attendance won a ticket (voucher) for a Wednesday night game at the end of January. As for the game, they were the better team early on, but clearly had no energy left by the third. Despite that, they only lost 1-0, and had Rodrigues had even the slightly bit of scoring touch early on in the game, they might have won 3-0. Don't know if the schedule is wearing on him, but he had a rough game.

See for yourself. ;)

54/46 Con/Lib. About right. Of course, I still have a problem with any unidimensional measure. As with a few people above, I tend to be fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. I suppose that's why I got a close mix, but I'd rather it be measured in two dimension (I've seen that once after one of those "what candidate should you vote for" quizzes.)