UTDD

Doubtful. If you really glean deep into Supreme Court jurisprudence and the current justices, it is very doubtful Roberts will ever vote for a full reversal. Even Kavanaugh might not go all the way believe it or not (on this specific issue only). Now if Ginsburg dies before 2020...

I don't see why it isn't possible to have some form of currency/cash/money that would allow the purchases of clothing, shelter, and food, and not specific negative purchases that anyone with common sense knows is a bad idea. Governments, just like individuals, should be accountable and responsible in how they allocate resources and make decisions. It isn't just about that specific person receiving aid, it's how enabling negative behavior/actions can have drastic repercussions on other people that become victims that are completely innocent.

Supposedly Minnesota asked for Tucker and Gordon for Butler, and I value Tucker so highly (especially with his contract) that I think Houston has to take a hard pass on that offer every time.

Cruz a long time ago was damaged goods to me in how he didn't fight enough about his wife.

Wow, he was the best thing to look forward to in a lot of ways for this year. Ugh, so terrible.

Just because something in testimony hasn't been proven by the proper standard of evidence doesn't in my mind mean it's complete B.S. unless there is some kind of corroborating evidence that shows this to be true. ( one example being proven to have knowingly lied) I think labeling things that way (whether for or against Ford or Kavanaugh) so easily as BS versus saying unproven or uncorroborated says a lot more about how one is quick to label and judge based on preconceptions and political orientation rather than deep thought. The truth is that Ford didn't prove enough to merit Kavanaugh being kicked off the court based on the actual evidence, but I haven't seen any evidence the other way to indicate it was complete B.S. versus unproven/uncorroborated.

It seems like already that CJ is a possible second or third round pick, and the better he plays, the more he will move up. I think there is a fair chance he is gone next year, but Texas is not lacking at WR so they should ok I think if he leaves. If the team wins 10+ games and he plays well, he should leave to be honest. CJ leaving and being selected high might hurt a little bit in the short team, but you want guys getting drafted high for long-term success. For many truly elite recruits/players, seeing a track record of NFL success under a program is gigantic as an influence factor.

Thank you!

In the end, Ennis might be quite fine as a replacement for Ariza. Moute wasn't counted on in the playoffs (although he could have helped) so in theory if healthy they could still have a nice wing defensive rotation to switch on Golden State. I think Boston and Toronto also have potentially very strong defensive rotations to switch hard on Curry (the only way IMHO to beat Golden State in that 10-15% chance range versus 1-5% is to beat up Curry physically as much as possible and double him on traps/switches strategically, make Curry work on defense, switch everything you can to avoid easy three looks, and don't double Durant to leave Curry/Thompson open (ok to double Durant if it leaves Green open) and hope he doesn't go too crazy on iso and let Draymond shoot outside and hope he is at 25-30% or so versus higher 30s) and their outside shooters, but the Warriors are so talented that you just have to hope you are hitting your shots better than they are 4 times out of 7 and that's tough obviously. If they have a healthy Cousins too, it's even tougher. Five All-Stars is five All-Stars. For Houston specifically, switch everything with a strong wing defensive rotation, shoot over 50 threes a game and hope you can hit near 38-40% and no worse than 33-35% and Golden State shoots a lower percentage. Houston used a very overall good strategy last year, they just didn't execute well enough when it counted.

I think LeBron is a great passer and playmaker for sure so no huge argument but I personally think Chris Paul should be # 2 under Curry (if healthy!). His impact on both sides of the floor and how consistent it has been for a long time is very underrated by a lot of fans. I love Kyrie to take a last second shot and think he is very clutch and very mentally tough when it counts which is a HUGE plus to me, but I don't think he is that close to Paul yet considering his defense and playmaking. Kyrie is incredible on the drive and his handles are frankly possibly Top 5 all-time in NBA history. (have to think about this one to be sure) Kyrie has similar health issues to Paul as well. If Westbrook is a PG I would argue Harden is kind of as well.

Texas is in decent shape having already beaten two top tier teams in TCU and OU so they have those tiebreakers if needed. If they can beat West Virginia and then suffer zero or one conference loss later on, they really should get in no problem to the championship game. Halfway mark some basic stats to ponder -- don't tell the whole story at all as variables are different year to year, but interesting... Auburn last year: 4.9 yards per rush (#32), 223.8 YPG (#21) Auburn this year so far: 3.1 yards per rush (#117), 110.8 YPG (#111) Texas rushing last year: 3.6 yards per rush (#107), 140.0 yards per game (#93) Texas rushing this year so far: 3.9 yards per rush (#87), 157.8 yards per game (#76) Texas defense: 366.6 yards per game (#39) vs 366.3 yards per game so far this year (#44) 5.0 yards per play (# 32) vs 5.4 yards per play this year (#61) Third down % rate of 27.14% (# 3) vs 34.88% this year (# 31) TO Margin of 0.6 (#22) vs 0.8 this year (#19)

I remember just last year I think it was KAT that led this poll. How much things can change in a year. Giannis and Davis are two really good choices -- I wouldn't take Durant personally given his age but not a bad third option at all.

Well at least Minnesota is kind of zeroing in on what I think they should be asking for in a prior post -- Bam and Richardson and trying to get rid of Dieng's contract. I would take out my prior post on Whiteside because I mistakenly thought his contract was a team option the following year but it's in fact a player option for 2019-2020 which makes his value go from valuable to almost useless. Maybe a third team is needed to pull it off, but I still think Minnesota should get rid of Dieng and Butler and try to get Richardson and Bam on some level.

If I'm an NBA agent, I don't want any of my players under Thibs.

Sam just needs to avoid turnovers and especially convert scores and especially TDs in the red zone. Texas is Bottom 20 team nationally in red zone scoring percentage and the Texas defense is Top 20 nationally in red zone scoring percentage. If Texas can stymie a few Oklahoma drives into field goals instead of TDs and Texas can turn a few drives into TDs instead of field goals, that might be the game. The Oklahoma team last year in my opinion was stronger than the one this year so I think Texas can definitely win the game if they play well.

Agreed, I think personally it is quite easy to distinguish Gamble's facts from a possible federal presidential pardon scenario. I don't remember the case, but I remember both Ginsburg and Thomas actually wanted to address the dual sovereignty issue. Before this whole hearing mess started, I had actually wondered whether Kavanaugh might be a stealth centrist on a few specific issues (not executive power/protection issues obviously) versus say Barrett but now this seems so irrelevant compared to his character issues.

I never say never, but I would be legitimately surprised if Roberts voted to overturn Roe. More likely you will see chipping at it, but not a complete repudiation of it.

I haven't read this in detail but from what I am hearing very quickly on the fly, this is a good change.

It's a good decision for them, especially considering the now public optics of having Bezos with that kind of net worth versus some of their entry level employees. It's also clear that they are in the possible cross hairs of an unfriendly administration so they should be proactive in defending themselves.

The $16/hour will likely help foreign workers some, but I wonder if for a lot of companies regulations and benefits are far more pressing issues that can be addressed easier outside of America. It might be easier to raise all pay for foreign workers to $16/hour and minimize benefit costs versus working with American unions and the uncertainty of those kind of issues long-term. I'm not in this industry so I have no clue of the realities of the numbers and I don't know a lot of Mexican labor laws/protections, but I've already seen some $15/hour minimum wage increases offset by some companies by going from 80/20 percent ratio of FT/PT to much more PT staff and way less FT to end up with a similar total labor cost even though the hourly has gone up more than 50% per hour. This strategy might not work for certain work/industries but it's certainly viable for some others.

Gamble is potentially a big case in that the Supreme Court could hold that double jeopardy applies to state governments because they are not separate sovereigns under the law. (this is currently an exception to double jeopardy under another case from I think about 60-70 years ago) I think there are pros and cons for this in that one could argue that a state should not prosecute someone for the same crime that for example has already been convicted under federal law. Some also argue that there are few federal and state law overlaps and that having no separate sovereign exception would have a fairly low impact overall. Also keep in mind some states already have a law barring the state from putting on trial a person for the same crime that has already been convicted on the federal level. On the other hand, in theory this could also mean that if someone receives a pardon from a federal conviction, this could bar states from prosecuting because they had already received a conviction. This might be relevant in the context of presidential pardons in particular.

I think you are right about this, but I personally find this relevant as it goes to Kavanaugh's own credibility based on his own sworn testimony. I don't need to know that Kavanaugh actually committed sexual assault to not want him on the Court. He needs to be squeaky clean with his own honesty and integrity -- especially if testifying under oath in a very recent setting.

I think Roberts in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (the ACA case) is a big indicator of how Roberts might balance specific issues in a very delicate but reasoned way.

Agreed and it kind of sucks for a lot of people he will mostly be identified with Monica versus some things he did as president. I also think if Hillary was just another "normal" Democratic candidate with the exact same positions but just a different name (prior baggage really hurt her I believe) that candidate likely would have won 2016, especially in the three critical states she lost. (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania)

Well aware of prior presidential performance fiscally, and definitely would say Bill Clinton was for me almost the ideal president in how he handled fiscal policy while still balancing his own issues that he wanted to address. Very underrated actually as I don't see many mention this when talking about him. I was also definitely against the Trump tax cuts although I might have been in favor of a targeted tax cut for only the middle class and also have no issues with raising taxes for higher incomes to ensure middle class tax cuts have a positive balance sheet overall. I have lived in a state in the past full-time and still live there three months a year or so (Hawaii) that often has had very irresponsible fiscal policy and I think it's not a fair statement to apply the presidential performance of the Democrat as the platform of the entire party overall being the more fiscally responsible party. I think there are so many variations of how governments actually function at the local, state, and national levels that you have to consider every case specifically one by one and do the best to gauge how you think a candidate will do when elected. I believed on a gut level from purely a fiscal perspective that on a spectrum (from 2016 election) that Trump would definitely do more deficit spending than Hillary, but less than Bernie Sanders. Now fiscal policy is not the only consideration obviously for a candidate, but it's a factor for sure. I also definitely buy that Republican presidents since at least Reagan have ballooned the national balance sheet in ways I don't like at all.