VakAttack

First rule: It is perfectly allowable for the Ds to expand the court, there is no law stopping it. It is only inertia that keeps the court at 9 Justices now, there is no law proscribing that, no evidence that 9 is some magical number. Second rule: McConnell refusing to vote on Obama's nomination for a SCOTUS seat under made up logic about it being an election year, then fasttracking a Trump nomination in the very next election year, changing his logic. Perfectly legal, ethically dubious. Precedent just means something was established. Technically, there's indications historically that SCOTUS Justice count should go along with the number of Circuit Courts at the federal level (which in this case would actually be 13), but that is, again, not proscribed anywhere by law.

You're not really explaining WHY it's different. You're telling me you just feel it's different. The number of justices on the Supreme Court has has changed multiple times in it's history, going as high as ten. So again, WHY is it different to exploit this rule vs. McConnell's exploiting of another rule?

Why is it different?

No. I'm saying if one team is not to going to "play" (again, a "game" in name only, since this is actual human lives being affected here) then you either get swamped or you play by the new rules. if you let your opponent dictate the rule changes, they will always win. Nobody is advocating doing anything illegal, just "changing accepted norms", right? It's great to be all "high minded", meanwhile, the minority party in this country is getting to rule with impunity with minoirty positions.

Willie's name on here is @Husker_Du. Very close!

Money has been disbursed to our place winners! Congrats!

I have paid @GreatWhiteNorth, I just need to have @Antitroll2828confirm his ID.

Spoiler alert, dude, SCOTUS has not always been 9 justices, and in fact that's not even the highest number is ever been. You're talking about this line it's s strategy game that the Republicans won, and not team people's lives. But in that vein, expanding the Court is also a possible move within the political "game" you're venerating. Just like Democrats aren't "entitled" to a majority, Republicans aren't entitled to have the Court only be 9. McConnell gamed the system, you're happy about it, and are simulatenously sputtering that some are encouraging Democrats to game the system as well. Classic hypocrisy.

...is it your opinion that changing the number of Supreme Court Justices is somehow illegal? Because I have some news for you about the history of that body.

Yes. You're not going to believe this, but flexing is not the precursor to being accused of rape.

Meant to address this specific issue: that's not how it works. Typically, the judge doesn't "decide if there's enough evidence to send a case to trial." They're deciding if there's a prima facia case to allow it to proceed. That just means in the light most favorable to the State, would a reasonable jury be able (not have to) convict him. In a case like this where it's just witness testimony and no actual physical evidence (that we know of) the determination is just "if we assume everything the witness/accuser says is true, could a jury find the defendant guilty." It's not a commentary on the quality of the evidence by the judge.

There's just some rumors that he wants to be a Navy SEAL and is pursuing that rather than wrestling.

Now that I doubt. They've been notably using transfers for awhile now, and recruiting has been great.

They still win without both of those guys. Unfortunately.

nobody has a high ground w/ regards to the portal for the upper echelon programs, they're all trying to use it. This does not change my opinions on the Ferraris. I would recruit the hell out of Angelo, but only him. If he won't come without his brothers, that sucks, but move on. It's unfair, though, to paint Angelo with the stains of his brothers, he's his own person, and him loving his brothers doesn't mean he would act the same way as they're accused of doing.

It is not prosecutorial misconduct, lol, least not based on what we know right now. That's an extremely high bar.

Alright. I'll disburse tomorrow out to third. Someone suggested next year doing it out to 4th, similar to NCAA team trophies, and I think that's good, though it may make sent to increase the buy in to $30.

After Party:

Yes, unless it's high profile.

Why would Trump saying wold shit suddenly be disqualifying?

No way to know without knowing the facts and the judge's habits.

In Florida we call this an open plea. Basically just what you said. You can't come to an agreement with the prosecutor on a plea, so you're asking the judge to sentence you. However, judges will also name court dates (at least in FL) after different legal proceedings, so it's possible that court date is just called Blind Plea Date. Or it's a day for all pleas, including negotiated ones, and the docket just shortens it and Blind is first alphabetically.

That's Angelo, the youngest brother.

Anthony is already college aged, he was at Okie State the same time as AJ. He's not as good thusfar.

I've just decided I'm going to pretend he doesn't exist, lol.