Neo

11g 11a 22 pts

Happy 4th of July, one and all ... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ..."

Column as I see 'em ... Attorney General Lynch, to whom the FBI reports and whose team may evaluate an FBI referral of prosecution, visited with Bill Clinton privately. Forget partisanship for a moment. I can't imagine a dumber move by our nation's top prosecutor. Fortunately, in hindsight, neither can she. I say fortunately in the context of my concern for her cognitive capacity. My use of the word "fortunately", unfortunately, won't remove the shadow cast, to use her language. It's not all bad news, though. Eric Holder may no longer be the President's worst AG. Good day for him ... In Dhaka, Bangladeshi troops stormed a restaurant and ended a long standoff with terrorists that left 20 hostages dead. The terrorists asked hostages to demonstrate knowledge of the Quran and hacked to death those who could not. After, the attackers sent photos of the carnage to the Islamic State. They were armed with pistols, bombs, and swords. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack ... I am looking for a Bangladeshi blog, but haven't yet found one. I'll express my deep and sincere condolences. Of course, I'll let them know that this is a sword, bomb and gun control issue even though Dhaka's "weapon control" laws extends well beyond guns, and includes swords, knives, etc. They clearly aren't strict enough, especially true if one views every problem myopically and through this lens. Being enlightened, I'll "shhhhh" them if they reference Islam and encourage the "long view" strategy being successfully implemented in the US. I can only hope they're sophisticated enough to grasp this complicated concept, whatever the hell it is. Of course, I'll mourn the hate crime perpetrated by home grown terrorists against the Dhaka LGBT community. I'll explain to the Bangladeshis that their imperialist past, their grab for oil, and their participation in the crusades explain and legitimize the pain being inflicted on them today. I had no idea, until yesterday, that Bangladesh was an oil grabbing imperialist power that participated in the Crusades! The things we learn. I'll close by letting them know that any resentment they feel to hacking deaths is explained by their over reaction, as white skinned people, to brown skinned people seeking economic opportunity. Of course, the Bangladeshis are, themselves, brown skinned people seeking economic opportunity and white skinned people weren't involved. Perhaps they'll overlook this non-sequitur, even as we don't ... Caesar Goodwin was found not guilty of murder. He is, of course, the African American man railroaded by a mob, a compliant Mayor, and a self serving and cowardly prosecutor. In the self indulgent that is #BlackLivesMatter, a man and his family unfairly endured a murder trial where the prosecution failed to find even logical inference, let alone criminal intent. I am grateful that, still today, #ASingleBlackLifeMatters, even when it's exposed to the tsunami of the grievance culture ... Donald Trump doesn't take my phone calls. If he did, I'd tell him to never say "Mexico" or "Mexican", ever again. I'd explain that he'd never yet made sense in any sentence where he's used one of those two words ... Hillary Clinton is interviewing with the FBI, today. It's a criminal investigation. Her supporters say it doesn't matter. This troubles me more than any possible crime ...

"Because, Buffalo ...." A phrase turns a corner?

It's more disturbing. It is. Awesome ...

I called a prominent Buffalo defense attorney and told him I frequent a blog where a client of his is among the topics. I told him there are regular blog posters who refer to the "A" word when his client's name comes up and explainied that I didn't follow the reference. He paused for a moment and said that his office, too, used the "A" word when talking about his client. "The word's 'Annuity'", he explained.* * The conversation claimed, represented and/or depicted, above, is wholly fictitious and did not, in fact, take place. Any resemblance to actual athletes frequently talking to defense lawyers is purely coincidental and assuredly unintended.

Two SS Titans and struck me right in the funny bone!

Here's a simple, old school, thought. I'm glad he stayed in Tampa. I see people wearing their Stamkos jersies and remember back to my youth. When I was a boy, there were times when my heroes were traded. It made me sad. I did not have to deal with the especially wretched thought of "he left for money". I watched teammates compete, pure and simple. There were no mercenaries. A lot of boys and girls made a fist, pumped it back and forth, and said "yessssss", yesterday.

Nothing "personal" felt!

Interesting reading, inspired by Whiskey's reference to yesterday's SCOTUS ruling. SCOTUS, health care safeguards, regulation and Kermit Gosnell. Progressives and Conservatives. Strange bedfellows, indeed. http://www.weeklystandard.com/is-the-supreme-courts-abortion-decision-a-victory-for-kermit-gosnell/article/2003057?utm_source=newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily+Digest

I think they'd toast success! The People's House!

They ruled on a right they found, again respectively, relying on penumbra and emanation. I'll bring in Griswold, referenced (cited?) in Roe, to address both words. The words are theirs, not mine. Process. Will of the People. I'd use Will of the People regarding Roe if the right didn't rely on a word having its root in the Latin for "shadow". When legislation requires no shadow to be clear, I find it The Will of the People. When legislation tramples a right obvious without relying on shadow, I find it the Tyranny of the Majority. I promised you the last word. I broke that promise to clarify me, and not challenge you. PS ... I may surprise you with my view on the issue. It's nuanced! Let me say only that had Texas legislatively allowed the procedure, and SCOTUS relied on penumbra and emanation to outlaw it, my view on the process would be the same.

The court didn't legislate in Roe v Wade? I refer you to the trimester framework in the opinion. I think progressives themselves, respectfully, cheer this, um, approach as "legislative". I hoped there wouldn't be confusion in and among two posts, two posters, and the two descriptions of tyranny and will. I know you can see your way through it. "Tyranny of the majority" is my colorful way of saying the will of the people that threatens a right of others. "The will of the people" is my pedestrian way of saying legislation that represents the will of the people that doesn't threaten a right. I'd hoped the language would demonstrate coming at issues from either direction. Here's simplicity. Check legislative excess and affirm legislative restraint (tyranny and will). The tipping point for your particular example, and the reason we're not likely to see eye to eye on the process, is the right in the context of penumbra and emanation. Again, no view on the issue. Here's what I didn't say. Checking other branches always means either upholding or striking down legislation. You can check, or not, in either direction. You know where I find rights and how I distinguish them from benefits. I'm not for everybody. I'll give you the last word. Lastly, Obamacare. I'd have to collect my thoughts before writing. I am a court amateur. I think you'll find my view of the opinion consistent with my view of the entire process. That is: Health care is a good thing. Providing it to all is a good thing. Calling it a right, or misrepresenting its economics, is a bad thing. Calling it a benefit and debating how to provide it and at what cost would've been a good thing. My recollection of the opinion was that it cobbled together all of the benefit, inferred some legislative intent, ignored some wording both present and missing, bruised some states rights, and tried to "rule" with as little disruption of the new status quo as possible. To our prior conversation: that's either protecting against Tryanny or respecting The Will, depending on where you're standing. Can I say "they sorta punted"? Lobbyists: I don't liken them to judges. I do think they're a separate "unelected" center of power. That comes with The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. I'm not sure if you added the guns comment because of my semi-regular second amendment postings. I'm not familiar with the ruling you're referring to, but I'll guess! If convicted criminals (domestic abusers) forfeit rights (guns), I'm fine with that. No controversy there, I'll suppose.

Yes, sustaining the very issue arising with the progressive penumbra and emanation I alluded to. What an ironic example. I might say that yesterday the court checked a challenge to its own original usurpation of the will of the people. In essence, the court sustained its primacy. The court legislated, the legislature reacted, the court checked the legislature's reaction. That's unsatisfying evidence that the court did exactly what I ask them to do. I offer no view on the issue, itself, in a forum as limiting as this one. Frankly, abortion's not my point. My interest is solely the role of the court. Yesterday, it checked the tyranny of the majority designed to restore the will of the people after unwinding the will in the first place. When you're a progressive court, you can check legislatures from both sides in advancing an agenda. That's not a power I'm comfortable housing in unelected life tenured persons. Yesterday was round 1,629. Ignore the will of the people, usurp it, and then check and reject the people's challenges. We can both point to yesterday. I find it more evidence of my concern, if further down the process continuum.

In response to your direct request: No, I cannot. If I could "expand", I'd not have used the word "seeming". "Seeming" is faint praise born in skepticism. I chose the word based on the general media characterization of the names he's considering and the organization's providing advice to him. Embedded in my word choice, admittedly if not obviously, is my personal view that those names and advisors are the right ones. Shorthand: I have no idea what Trump is, what he believes, or what he'll do. With regard to one issue, I'm skeptically hopeful given the electoral alternative.

Not directed toward Mr. D. His conclusion is correct. That's the problem. One of my deepest concerns about America's future is that many of its citizens see the Judicial branch as a vehicle for progress. The Founders would shake their heads. We have a legislature for progress. Courts are a check. I'd say it this way. "Once Clinton gets elected, we will see an accelerated deterioration of the constitutional checks the judiciary brings to the individual with regard to the whim and tyranny of the legislature's majority". The court's "fixing" what our representatives deliver on our behalf isn't the design. Want progress? Call your congressperson. The Judiciary is not a subsidiary, or partner, of the Legislature. Coming soon, to a nation of surrendering citizens near you ... penumbra and emanation and an unlisted whole host of things. My vote this November, as the line up's come together, will be the most difficult I've ever made. As I weigh options, I have Trump's generally uninformed intemperance balanced by his seeming understanding of the role of the Judiciary.

To all the heavy lifters in this thread, thank you. Crusader - awesome.

Calling Neo's Legacy, Calling Neo's Legacy .... my kids missed you all. Wonder if they went to the wrong place!

I'm always prepared to be schooled. From Detroit's PoV, I like the trade. They're back in the Stamkos dance or out of cap jail, regardless. Genius. No controversy here, I suspect. Az, on the other hand sent a boatload of one year cap cash, a 2nd and a journeymen to Detroit to move up four spots. The cap cash was dead to them, anyway. They grabbed a top 1-4 D prospect and solved a floor problem. Arizona trades what it has but can't use to Detroit for what it doesn't have and needs. Both teams win. What am I missing?

Sergachev, Nylander, Brown .... in order

Someday I'll understand why the NHL sends Gary Bettman out in front of fans, alone, in any city, for any event.

Keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.

Represent!!!

I have read you all and immersed myself as best I can for weeks. Thank you for your contributions. Assuming the top six are 1, 2, 3, Dubois, Tkachuk and one defenseman, my choices in order are the remainider of Sergachev(1)/Juolevi(2), or Nylander. No surprises, there. I would pass on Chychrun at 8. I have Keller, then Brown, next. I'm wary of young Russians with the KHL offering so much to players looking at the OHL and AHL in development years, but I believe Sergachev will see NHL ice time quickly, especially in Buffalo.

Well, now you "kinda" know one. I'm a Constitution guy, if an admitted amateur and not a scholar. I feel as strongly about 5 and 14 as I do about 2, as inconvenient as that may be. In the awesomely interesting world of strange bedfellows, I'm joined by the ACLU. https://www.aclu.org/blog/washington-markup/use-error-prone-and-unfair-watchlists-not-way-regulate-guns-america