Johnny Sack

No. I want justice Dam Son or Sum Tim Wong.

I don't gut shoot hogs. Head or shoulder for me (head if looking at me, shoulder if broad side). They are easy to drag off. Just tie some rope around their legs and hook them to a trailer hitch.

I honestly don't know which state agency has the jurisdiction to enforce that. Setting the rules on the entry and removal of aliens is unquestionably an exclusive federal power. Whether state and local law enforcement can enforce civil immigration matters is pretty damn blurry.

That guy was in the woods. Helis don't work there. For most of Texas -- outside of East Texas with piney woods and thick tall tree cover -- helicopters are the most effective. You can spend two days and clear out 10,000 acres of pretty much every hog with a helicopter and rotating shooters. Remote traps and thermal are your second best. I can tell you massacring a bunch of pigs in a trap isn't a pretty sight. I was at a friend's place last year and he had over 40 he caught in remote a trap. It was like the Einsatzgruppen brutal.

Let me pick the Asian and you got it.

Maybe we should have an Asian on the court first. They are the ones really getting fucked by affirmative action. Be nice to have their perspective. We have none on the Court now.

I think they probably do have the authority the way I read the Constitution. Tribe does not. Unless he changes his mind. He's a giant in the Con Law field. I am not. And prior precedent of government action from 2018 means almost nothing to a legal challenge. No court has ever addressed it. I don't think it will be an issue. I think this nomination gets closer to 60 votes than 50.

Yale Law is pass fail.

Interesting question is whether the VP has the constitutional authority to break ties on confirmations. From Harvard Con Law professor Laurence Tribe. https://archive.is/qPnVS No hiding behind Pence’s skirt on the Supreme Court nomination The vice president doesn’t have the power to break a tie on the appointment. By Laurence H. TribeUpdated September 23, 2020, 10:36 a.m. In the coming weeks, certain Republican senators running for reelection will find it convenient to tell opponents of President Trump’s Supreme Court nomination that they bear no responsibility for the damage this rushed appointment will do to the Affordable Care Act, Roe v. Wade, and other court rulings their moderate supporters care about. They will say that even if they did join Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine in voting against confirming a precedent-shattering nominee this close to the election, the vote would be 50-50 and Vice President Mike Pence would break the tie to put that nominee on the court. They are wrong. While the vice president has the power to cast a tiebreaking vote to pass a bill, the Constitution does not give him the power to break ties when it comes to the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” role in approving presidential appointments to the Supreme Court. You don’t have to take my word for it. Alexander Hamilton said the same thing way back in 1788, in Federalist No. 69: “In the national government, if the Senate should be divided, no appointment could be made.” Hamilton contrasted that rule with how appointments worked back then in his home state of New York, where the governor actually did have the power to break ties to confirm nominations to New York state offices. Consistent with Hamilton’s understanding, as two thoughtful recent scholarly analyses have pointed out, no vice president in our history has ever cast a tiebreaking vote to confirm an appointment to the Supreme Court. If Pence tried to cast the deciding vote to confirm Trump’s nomination to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last week at age 87, it would be the first time that has ever happened. That should matter to everyone — it certainly matters (or used to matter) to “originalists,” who emphasize the importance of history when interpreting our Constitution. In fact, from our founding until 2018, no vice president had even cast a tiebreaking vote to confirm an appointment to a lower federal court. That nearly 230 years of unbroken historical practice ended when Pence cast the tiebreaking vote to confirm Jonathan Kobes to a seat on a lower federal court in December 2018. (Some may point to a tiebreaking vote that then-Vice President George H.W. Bush cast in July 1986, relating to the confirmation of Daniel Manion to a lower federal court, but Manion had already been confirmed by a previous 48-46 vote, without Bush participating. The tie that Bush broke was a later vote on a “motion to reconsider,” asking the Senate to undo its earlier vote confirming Manion. A vice president could arguably be permitted to break ties on votes concerning Senate procedure, even in the judicial nomination context, as long as he or she does not break ties on the ultimate confirmation vote — which Bush did not do.) But there is much more to this than historical practice. Giving the vice president tiebreaking power over judicial appointments would also break the Framers' careful constitutional structure. When it comes to legislation, the vice president’s tiebreaking power affects only half of the lawmaking process: the vice president can break a tie in the Senate, but has zero say in the House of Representatives. Breaking a tie on judicial appointments, though, would give the vice president power over the entire appointments process, since it is only the Senate that weighs in on such matters. A thumb on part of the scale in the legislative process is hugely different from single-handedly tipping the entire scale when it comes to confirming justices — justices who will sit in judgment over the work of the other two branches, potentially including disputes over the upcoming election itself, in which Pence obviously has the most direct interest imaginable. For those who care about the details, Hamilton’s view and the historical practice (up until this administration) is confirmed by the structure and drafting history of our Constitution. As a structural matter, the provision granting the vice president the power to break ties in the Senate is located in Article I, which addresses Legislative Power. By contrast, the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” power over judicial appointments appears in Article II, making it a form of power wielded by the Senate that is executive, not legislative, in nature. The vice president has some power to influence legislation, by casting a tiebreaking vote in the Senate, while the Senate has some power to influence executive appointments, by granting or withholding consent. Structurally, the vice president cannot smuggle his Article I legislative tiebreaking power into Article II to undermine the Senate’s unique Article II executive power of advice and consent. As for the drafting history of the “Advice and Consent” clause, the Framers first considered a provision that "Judges shall be nominated by the Executive, and such nomination shall become an appointment if not disagreed to by the [Senate].” But they rejected that language in favor of the provision that ultimately made its way into our Constitution: “[t]he President . . . shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate appoint . . . Judges of the Supreme Court.” That shift in language matters a lot — but only in the context of a tie. Under the first formulation, a tie favors the president, because the Senate cannot muster a majority to “disagree” with the appointment, while under the second — which became our constitutional law — a tie works against the president, because the Senate cannot muster a majority to “consent” to the appointment, leaving the nominee unconfirmed. But if the vice president is able to cast a tiebreaking vote, the difference is meaningless: The vice president decides whether the appointment goes through regardless of whether the standard is “if not disagreed to” or is “with the … consent.” Surely the Founders would not have spent their time and effort changing this language, which matters only when such votes are tied, if they understood the vice president had the power to break those ties. The bottom line is this: Don’t let Senators Cory Gardner of Colorado, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, or any others hide behind Pence’s skirt on this issue. Every single one of them has the power, standing alone, to defeat this nomination and hold Senate Republicans to the same “rule” they applied in 2016. Laurence H. Tribe, the Carl M. Loeb University Professor and professor of constitutional law emeritus at Harvard Law School, is coauthor, most recently, of “To End A Presidency: The Power of Impeachment” (with Joshua Matz). Follow him on Twitter @tribelaw.

I would put Beltran in. Loved his game. In addition to his hitting and defense, when he was in his prime he was just about the most efficient base stealer I've ever seen. Rarely got caught.

Cool. Who did that?

Would that be similar to using the filibuster 300+ times in the Trump era but now claiming the filibuster is Jim Crow 2.0? Or is that different?

Have them cause a tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage to your fields or equipment and you might think different. I don't try and make them suffer. But heli hunting is probably the most effective way to get rid of those invasive rodents. And whoever is not on the chopper will be on the ground following and can finish off any that need it. You can also use a 12 gauge with buck shot from a chopper. A lot of people do. It will do the trick. We have almost no hogs because we heli hunt, use remote control traps, and let those who want to thermal hunt them. They are invasive and destructive non-native species. Think of them like zebra mussels or rats.

It's expected for Jimmy to say a lot of stupid shit.

I spend a lot of time in South Texas and have since the mid 80s. I also spent three years in high school in the RGV. In addition to our place, I have a lot of friends with ranches in South Texas. It is worse than it has ever been. And you guys denying it are whistling past the graveyard. It's one of the main reasons hispanics in South Texas are turning to the GOP -- notice our cackling border czar VP won't step foot in the RGV.

Mazie Hirono has a Hank Johnson level IQ. She isn't fit to run a lemonade stand.

From the game cam recently. Screen grab from a video with about 40 illegals on it. Video timed out while the procession was still going. Border is an absolute joke under this POS President. Never been close to this bad.

Uruguay has fantastic dove and perdiz hunting

You got an example? I don’t insult Kamala cause she is partially black. I assault her because she’s an idiot. About 80 percent of the country hates her. So I’m far from alone.

Random mass shootings account for around 100 or so deaths a year. In a country of 330 million.

Waste of time and money. Only way to control population is by shooting females (or sterilizing).

Sitting in the office. No booze since New Years. Thinking about going longer than a month.

300 Blackout suppressed shooting subs in a safe direction can do the trick. What really should happen is allow wardens and hired hunters to go night hunt and just slaughter as much as needed. Kill mainly doe.