“Oh please. If he felt disrespected where was the anger and direction to cease and desist after the first foul to stop being bullies and play the game? Phil, at a minimum. allowed that kind of play to continue. He got what he's deserved. I'm glad his last game will always be marred. No class.”
Greg Ian Riggs on May 8, 2011 at 22:10:34
“Not just the lack of dignity, but Jackson was thoroughly out coached in this round. Letting Gasol guard Dirk in the final minute of game one. Not making any kind of adjustment against the pick and roll in game two. Not being able to get any kind of effort out of his team in game four.”
“Bynum is a goon, but given the timing (very shortly after Odom flagrantly fouled Dirk) where was Phil Jackson in any of this? Absolutely no move by Phil to tell his players to play the game, ignore the temptation to retaliate. At best Jackson was completely oblivious to what was going on. More likely, even if he didn't directly order hits on the Mavs, by his inaction he knowingly allowed or encouraged Bynum's foul. Don't give me all this "he's a Hall of Fame Coach and Saint" - Hall of Fame, yes, Saint, no. Disgusting. Can you imagine the same scenario happening with Doc Rivers?? No way. Would have chewed out the team after the first foul (regardless of who committed). Glad the Lakers got swept. Hope Stern has the guts to do the right thing and impose meaningful suspensions next year and censure Jackson.”
“It's not about imposing ones beliefs on others to object to what is clearly an innappropriate reference to a group of people. There are a lot of other perjorative terms for various groups (think race, ethnicity, sexual orientation) that people would be rightfully upset about if refered to in an equivalent manner to the title of this show.”
“Can you imagine ABC having a show called "Jihad bitches" - probably not. But apparently insutling Christians is fair game in this country. Of course you know they'll pull the show/change the name because Disney (ABC's parent compnay) can't afford the bad publicity, and, you guessed, millions of Christians visit their theme parks and watch ABC.”
onionboy on Mar 11, 2011 at 10:52:56
“Since "jihad" is not synonymous with "christian", I can't imagine it. It will be pulled (at least from regular network) for the profanity. I find it odd that you consider it insulting to Christians, but don't mention that it might be insulting to women.”
“So the Democrats who fled the state rather than participate as elected legislators are upset the Governor won't return their calls?? Whether they like it or not the voters of Wisconsin decided they wanted that governor and the number of Republicans they elected, so by running away they're basically thumbing their collective noses at the people of Wisconsin. Will come back to haunt them even more than the backlash against teachers illegally sicking out. At least the teacher's union leadership understands the political (not to mention likely legal) risk of abusing the system to take time away from school days express their views. Of course just shows they are less concerned about students and their educational needs than they are about their own wallets. As far as the posts on this article comparing the Wisconsin protests to those in Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, etc the word that comes to mind is 'ridiculous'. How can people compare unelected dictatorial murderous oppressive regimes to a duly elected governor and legislature looking to pretty much implement what they told the voters they were going to do? And please stop with the Hitler comparisons - that debases the horrors he and the Nazis imposed on millions and millions of innocent victims. I may dislike the current President's policies, but I would never refer to him as a Hitler. Interesting how the post-Arizona shooting calls for restraint from the left obviously only meant restraining the right's expressions.”
lacifaeria on Feb 21, 2011 at 02:07:26
“And dude....."Interesting how the post-Arizona shooting calls for restraint from the left obviously only meant restraining the right's expressions."
Michelle Bachmann just called the tax code a "weapon of mass destruction" so you might want to scrub the slime off that glass house you're in before trying to throw that stone.”
lacifaeria on Feb 21, 2011 at 02:04:45
“If only the GOP/TP could see the irony of saying something like this:
"Whether they like it or not the voters of Wisconsin decided they wanted that governor and the number of Republicans they elected"
after the last 3 years of criticizing the Obamas on everything from health care reform to breastfeeding babies to curb obesity. It's cool tho.....because I'm going to really enjoy revisiting this comment after Obama wins a 2nd term and all the GOP/TP's heads just explode in "WTF!!!"-ness hahaha”
llabesab1234 on Feb 21, 2011 at 01:51:24
“You have achieved something most teachers have never experienced. An excellent analysis of economics, history and civility. Summa Cum Laude to you.”
Oleksandr Pana on Feb 21, 2011 at 01:48:31
“Are you saying we have fair and fraud free elections in US? Hahhaha you live in a dream land buddy. This nation was found on protest! If strike is the only way lets be it.
Egyptians tried to change the government without protest for 30 years, we don't have that much time.”
“but until the law is changed, it's still the law. I'm surprised Emanuel didn't research this more closely before moving back.”
Beau2 on Jan 25, 2011 at 07:47:43
“I do recall several legal types predicting that he would not be allowed to run, back when he was still "thinking" about it. And, at that same time, Rahm would not address how he was going to get around the residency problem.
He knew this could happen and I guess his arrogance or over whelming sense of entitlement just clouded his better judgment.”
mercedes1947 on Jan 25, 2011 at 05:07:05
“My thought too.”
nasayer2 on Jan 25, 2011 at 04:32:39
“Bad legal advice. Or an incredibly arrogant sense of entitlement.”
“Of course as we know if this had been either Pres. Bush's white male appointee returning home to some city in Texas that he had left 2 years before to run against an African American former Senator it would be called racism. Of course that's what Emanuel is doing from a situational standpoint, but I don't believe it's racism for him to run against Carol Moseley Braun because there's no intent (about former Sen. Braun's race), it's just the situation he faces. But for those on the left who are too quick to ascribe motivations to people, might want to review how this situation looks and try to separate out appearances from motivations when there's no support for alleged motives.”
noahark on Jan 25, 2011 at 03:51:37
“What are U trying to say. I hope any white male or others who abide by the rules gets a chance to be elected if they desire.. But rules are rules. In NY, the rules got changed. OK but it still rules were followed-- most people believe me have moved beyond racial politics and just want the best candidate of any race--look at Governor O'Malley in Maryland--he won the governor's race overwhelmingly by all”
“Lots of misinformation/mis-speculation about this. First, Emanuel's inability to run for mayor (according to the appeals court) is broader than he can't be on the ballot but could be a write-in. Read the decision. He's not qualified to be in the race for Mayor, so any write ins are invalid. Second, this is based on Chicago MUNICIPAL law, so any reference to Illinois law, much less other state laws about election eligibility requirements for U.S. House, Senate, etc are not relevant. Third, the exception to retain residency while serving the U.S. is intended to apply to military personnel who are assigned to other locations either within, or outside, the U.S. The logic being that military assignments are not voluntary (unlike moving to DC to work for the President or anyone else). So bottom line is Emanuel lost at this level, may or may not win at the Illinois Supreme Court, but would be helpful if comments on this post would address the facts and/or their beliefs in whether this is fair or not rather than misstating the ruling or applicable law.”
Della Mae Smith on Jan 25, 2011 at 18:42:32
“Thank you so very much for this post .”
naschkatze on Jan 25, 2011 at 08:14:43
“F & F. I hope you get through to some people here.”
lawgrrl on Jan 25, 2011 at 07:57:53
“Thanks for the info. But then, I'm curious, if he is not a "resident" as defined in the municipal codes, then he should be reimbursed any state and local taxes he has paid for his two years serving at the "will of the President", no? If they won't reimburse him, isn't there a conflict then in municipal code and tax law? Just curious, this seems like a very messy decision. yMost vehicle codes say you must change your license to the state where you have resided for at least 90 days, as in most states, 90 days continuous living qualifies you as a resident. I'm just kinda thinking out loud here, but I think Rahm may actually win this one.”
mercedes1947 on Jan 25, 2011 at 05:15:22
“Very informative. But if this: 'so any reference to Illinois law, much less other state laws about election eligibility requirements...are not relevant.' is so, does it not mean the Supreme Court would have to overrule or declare Chicago's Municipal eligibility rules invalid? Why would they do that?”
peegan on Jan 25, 2011 at 04:35:46
“Here is another tidbit for you. Emanuel doesn't actualy own the home he claims as his Chicago residency. He and his wife set up a "charity" (they are the only donors) and the house is owned by this charity. A move to avoid taxes, it also weakens his case for legitimate residency.”
nasayer2 on Jan 25, 2011 at 04:35:17
“Good post. Definitely lots of misinformation here about this.”
“Ah yes, the more civil discourse everyone wants. Of course, this actually matters since this is from a member of Congress (not just some talk show host) who serves with the nearly assassinated Rep. Giffords (so he should have even more incentive to be rational and avoid pernicous accusations). But, did anyone expect anything else but for the name callers to degenerate into vicious attacks not based in fact? Congressional Replicans (and some Democrats) objecting to the health car law is the moral equivalent to the Holocaust??? Is nothing beyond the bounds of rationality these days? But it's probably because he listens to Rush Limbaugh . . . .”
“First, your reply to DipityDo is abusive. But more importantly your lame attempt to challenge just highlights your ignorance. Car insurance, once again for all of you ignoring multiple posts, is to provide liability for your potential harm to others while you engage in a voluntary activity (i.e. driving which courts define as a privelege not a right). If you don't drive, don't have to get car insurance. Also regulated state by state, not a federal mandate like they tried to impose regarding purchasing a minimum level of health insurance.”
“But they didn't call it a "tax" - tried to in court, but not in the legislation, which is something the court pointed out. Also, if they had called it a "tax" they would have had far fewer votes. Also, would not be constitutional to tax non-insured but not insured simply on that basis. Congress can tax activities but not inactivity (i.e. they can't impose an income tax if you have no earned income - so hermits at least are safe from the IRS).”
“Please, please, get off the car insurance analogy. Liability coverage to protect others from your driving and potential harm, while using public roads, if you voluntarily choose to drive, is very, very, different than mandating I purchase health insurance because of the fact I'm a citizen regardless of my engagement in the health care system. Also note auto liability insurance is a STATE action, varies from state to state, not a federal mandate for all (including non partcipants). I've also seen the canard comparing homeowners insurance requirements to health care - also very different. Non homeowners don't pay for homeowners insurance, and that insurance for owners is required by the lender, not the government (with very limited exceptions).”
“Big difference between the Federal Government imposing an obligation (to purchase health care insurance) vs. saying the First Amendment limits the feds from restricting free speech (finidng in Citizens United). Also for all those who continue to mischaracterize Citizens United as providing unlimited funding for corporations only, might want to see how much money unions spent the last election cycle.”
Michael Garvin on Dec 13, 2010 at 15:40:49
“Learn how to structure a sentence. Your poor response should be formatted as this: corporations provide unlimited funding for politicians who cater to their interest, not unlimited funding for corporations. Moreover, where did I state the political corruption was specific to the G.O.P. Most people are well aware that major labor unions are supporting D.E.M candidates, hence why there is so much corruption in both parties because it was authorized by the S C”
“LittleMittens - before you criticize someone else's analysis why don't YOU "bone up on your constitution ace" - Automobile liability coverage mandated by states is to provide protection against potential harm to others while engaging in a privelege (to drive) on government provided roads. As such, Federal law does not come into play. Lots of areas the states regulate, that Feds regulate in parts as well. Federal preemption of state law is not absolute in every type of area. Also, as has been pointed out, non drivers do not have to buy car insurance (unlike the health insurance mandate that would require everyone to have coverage). So your criticism is misplaced.”
“The law was not passed under Congress' taxing authority. Rather they continue to argue that there is a Commerce Clause right to impose purchasing health care. Course when that argument wasn't working they now trot out that the penalty for non-purchase is really a tax. If they had the votes to pass a tax to provide medicaid to all, they should have done it. Oh, but there was no way Congress could have done that since there is no push by Americans to raise their federal taxes more.”
Aviate on Dec 13, 2010 at 15:13:06
“It was passed under both authorities. Moreover, that is irrelevant. There is ample precedent that a law is constitutional even if the authority it is passed under is not constitutional, but another authority under which it could be passed is.
The invocation of the commerce clause is purely a political decision. For appearances' sake, they may not want to call it a tax. But it is a tax--a health care tax to support the Federal Gov't's vast outlays to health care providers, ERs etc, across the country.”
“What civil rights cases would those be? And why if there are so many cases involving Congress' right to regulate "economic inactivity" the Adminstration didn't include those in their brief to the Court? The judge refered to both parties' cited cases so not up to him to make up a precedent that the Adminstration clearly couldn't find.”
Pazuzu on Dec 13, 2010 at 14:17:35
“Well the two most famous are Heart of Atlanta vs U. S. and Katzenbach vs McClung.
How do you know they didn't? We're reading the court's opinion not the actual briefs from the parties. Judges (well their clerks really, judges almost never write their opinions) don't include every case mentioned in the briefs. They only include the ones they want to in order to make their opinion appear more well reasoned. All judges do it. That's why you read a majority opinion that cites certain cases and a dissent in the same case will cite completely different cases that the majority opinion doesn't mention at all.
An attorney's brief will usually include all the precedent. As an attorney myself, I would think it extremely unlikely that an attorney would leave those cases out.”
“Not the same. Homeowner's insurance is generally driven by the "owner" of the property - i.e. the mortgage company/bank that loaned the money and wants to protect its asset - strictly an economic contract. Car insurance is to provide coverage for other drivers who might be harmed. Non homeowners and non drivers do not have to buy either coverage. Has to do with their active participation in an economic acitivty. Reality is the Administration could have simply passed an additional TAX to pay for health care, but didn't for political reasons (i.e. the American people won't support a tax to pay for other people's healthcare). So they tried to bootstrap the coverage mandate under the Commerce Clause and that was rightfully found to be unconstitutional.”
“Car insurance requriements (which are state imposed, not federal) are to provide insurance against your potential harm to others. If you choose not to drive, you're not required to buy insurance because you might drive later.”
“Not a valid comparison. If you choose to drive, on roads paid for by taxpayers, with a drivers's license issued by a state (assuming you follow the law), the government has the right to require you to follow certain provisions (i.e. buy insurance, get a license) because you have voluntarily chosen to participate in an activity where you may present a risk of harm to OTHERS - the coverage is to protect your potential harm to other drivers/passengers. The health insurance mandate is about the potential economic harm to yourself. I don't seem to remember Congress saying we all must buy car insurance or pay a penalty, even if we don't drive, because we might drive someday in the future.”
“For all those bashing Judge Hudson's Opinion in this case, have you actually read it? Any of it? Have any prior knowledge of how the Commerce Clause has actually been interpreted by courts in the past? Also, please note the fallback position for this Adminstration was that if the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision of the health care law (basically the requirement to buy insurance or be penalized) isn't okay under the Commerce Clause, then the penalty for not buying insurance is really a tax, and as such Congress has the ability to impose a tax for not buying insurance. Sure don't remember the Adminstration saying they were going to increase our taxes if we didn't buy insurance.
Reality is we should all be frightened by a Congress that believes it can tell us what we have to purchase whether we want to or not. What's the limit if this law is upheld?
As far as Hudson being a judicial activist because he found this law unconstitutional, generally what conservatives have been concerned about is judges who overturn laws restricting certain activities (think abortion, gay marraige that had specific state prohibitions that the courts overturned). This is an instance of a law telling citizens what the must do (rather than restricting what they can do). Conservatives are rightfully concerned about laws that impose new requirements on citizens on how they must act.”