why would people be upset w/ Michael Griffin?

[WDN]

Because he is not a centerfielder.

 

[masomenos]

2) I imagine some radical changes would happen to our society, such as the elimination of Congress's completely fictional ability to regulate whatever the hell they want to. Which is good, because currently that sham of a ruling is making complete mockery of the constitution. For one, we wouldn't get ridiculous rulings like Gonzalez v Raich.

Gonzalez v. Raich was a poor ruling, I'll give you that. However, it doesn't warrant the overturning of Wickard v. Filburn.

 

[cobra]

I'd be happy to give you some directions.

So none. Again. Still nothing. Ever heard of a TRCP 166a(i) motion?

1) No, it isn't necessary for shorthand citations, which is all I was doing. And if you were to look at other sites where I have similar signatures up, I have the full citation.

As someone who is actually a lawyer and has been doing this for over 10 years, let me just say this to that statement: LOL.

2) I imagine some radical changes would happen to our society, such as the elimination of Congress's completely fictional ability to regulate whatever the hell they want to. Which is good, because currently that sham of a ruling made is making complete mockery of the constitution. For one, we wouldn't get ridiculous rulings like Gonzalez v Raich.

Superficial nonsense. First, over-ruling Wickard would be pointless. Lopez, Morrison and Gonzalez would still exist... not to mention about 7 decades of commerce clause cases. In other words, not a damn thing would happen if you over-turned that. But I suppose you are ignoratly trying to suggest that you want the entire theory of substantial affects on interstate commerce to be negated. Well then I'd be interested in hearing (1) your explanation as to what the Commerce clause does mean, (2) how you would expect the practical commerical effects to unfold, and (3) why you feel that would be preferable. I highly doubt I will get informed answers to either of those, which is why putting that in your signature line--which is your message to the world--is laughable and, interestingly, pretentious and ignorant at the same time.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

He's not your classic CF, which was my original contention, and he's not good value at 22. I never said Griffin was as bad as Roy in coverage.

Just that he can't play FS for what we want our FS to do.

do you even know what is required to play CF?

 

[WDN]

So none. Again. Still nothing. Ever heard of a TRCP 166a(j) motion?



As someone who is actually a lawyer and has been doing this for over 10 years, let me just say this to that statement: LOL.



Superficial nonsense. First, over-ruling Wickard would be pointless. Lopez, Morrison and Gonzalez would still exist... not to mention about 7 decades of commerce clause cases. In other words, not a damn thing would happen if you over-turned that. But I suppose you are ignoratly trying to suggest that you want the entire theory of substantial affects on interstate commerce to be negated. Well then I'd be interested in hearing (1) your explanation as to what the Commerce clause does mean, (2) how you would expect the practical commerical effects to unfold, and (3) why you feel that would be preferable. I highly doubt I will get informed answers to either of those, which is why putting that in your signature line--which is your message to the world--is laughable and, interestingly, pretentious and ignorant at the same time.

Griffen still can't play FS like we want him to.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Griffen still can't play FS like we want him to.

compelling argument

 

[WDN]

compelling argument

It is all you need to know.

 

[Gaede]

do you even know what is required to play CF?

10' long jump, 16 reps of 225

right?

 

[masomenos]

Griffen still can't play FS like we want him to.

Griffin has very good athletic ability and has good ball skills. He can play either safety position and has kick-blocking ability. He needs to tackle better but has talent. He could be a cornerback prospect and will be a very good special teams player. He has great character and will play a long time at a high level." Gil Brandt, NFL.com

"hows the ability to change directions quickly, explodes out of cuts and has good short-area man-to-man cover skills. Possesses good top-end speed, has long arms and can cover the deep middle of the field when he makes the right reads. Is tall, has god leaping ability and flashes the ability to catch the ball at its highest point. Possesses decent ball skills and is capable of making some big plays in coverage...Griffin is a relentless run supporter, he displays very good range in deep coverage and he is one of the best special team's players in the 2007 draft class. If coached properly, Griffin has the physical tools to emerge as an upper-echelon starting safety in the NFL." Scouts Inc, ESPN.com

"Has the burst coming out of his cuts to be quite effective covering the speedy receivers in one-on-one situations...Alert to the quarterback's pump fakes and play-action when operating in the zone...Is often around the ball due to his ability to quickly locate it and get in position to make the play...Has the loose hips, quick feet and fluid turning motion to come out of his pedal and stay tight with the receiver throughout the route...Can stay stride for stride with the receiver down field and has the recovery burst and speed to get back into the play if he over-pursues...Shows good knee bend and hip snap to turn and run with ease, keeping his balance through good weight distribution coming out of his breaks...Closes in a hurry and works hard to keep plays in front of him...Effective at either going for the ball or delivering a crunching hit on the receiver to separate the opponent from the play...Gets a very good break on the pass and has the natural hands and vision to look the ball in over his outside shoulder...[FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=-2]Can run the field and has the speed to play the two-deep...Has the flexibility and ball adjustment skills to compete for the jump balls and won't hesitate to bang opponents around to get position to make the play...Looks the ball in nicely and is not the type who lets the ball absorb into his body, showing the extension skills to catch outside the frame..." NFLDraftScout.com

That's not what we want out of a FS?
[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Bob Sacamano]

10' long jump, 16 reps of 225

right?

close, 1.49 10-yard and 2.57 20-yard dash

 

[Gaede]

and Randall Williams will make a good WR, someday

 

[WDN]

Griffin has very good athletic ability and has good ball skills. He can play either safety position and has kick-blocking ability. He needs to tackle better but has talent. He could be a cornerback prospect and will be a very good special teams player. He has great character and will play a long time at a high level." Gil Brandt, NFL.com

"hows the ability to change directions quickly, explodes out of cuts and has good short-area man-to-man cover skills. Possesses good top-end speed, has long arms and can cover the deep middle of the field when he makes the right reads. Is tall, has god leaping ability and flashes the ability to catch the ball at its highest point. Possesses decent ball skills and is capable of making some big plays in coverage...Griffin is a relentless run supporter, he displays very good range in deep coverage and he is one of the best special team's players in the 2007 draft class. If coached properly, Griffin has the physical tools to emerge as an upper-echelon starting safety in the NFL." Scouts Inc, ESPN.com

"Has the burst coming out of his cuts to be quite effective covering the speedy receivers in one-on-one situations...Alert to the quarterback's pump fakes and play-action when operating in the zone...Is often around the ball due to his ability to quickly locate it and get in position to make the play...Has the loose hips, quick feet and fluid turning motion to come out of his pedal and stay tight with the receiver throughout the route...Can stay stride for stride with the receiver down field and has the recovery burst and speed to get back into the play if he over-pursues...Shows good knee bend and hip snap to turn and run with ease, keeping his balance through good weight distribution coming out of his breaks...Closes in a hurry and works hard to keep plays in front of him...Effective at either going for the ball or delivering a crunching hit on the receiver to separate the opponent from the play...Gets a very good break on the pass and has the natural hands and vision to look the ball in over his outside shoulder...[FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=-2]Can run the field and has the speed to play the two-deep...Has the flexibility and ball adjustment skills to compete for the jump balls and won't hesitate to bang opponents around to get position to make the play...Looks the ball in nicely and is not the type who lets the ball absorb into his body, showing the extension skills to catch outside the frame..." NFLDraftScout.com

That's not what we want out of a FS?
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Post it again. It doesn't make it true.

 

[masomenos]

Post it again. It doesn't make it true.

Post again. You still don't have a credible argument.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Post again. You still don't have a credible argument.

:laugh2: ouch

 

[WDN]

Griffen is not a cover safety.

 

[masomenos]

Griffen is not a cover safety.

Without saying something like "Because it's true" can you explain why exactly you say that?

 

[mschmidt64]

As someone who is actually a lawyer and has been doing this for over 10 years, let me just say this to that statement: LOL.

As someone who talks to lawyers every day about this, let me just say this to that statement: LOL.

Superficial nonsense. First, over-ruling Wickard would be pointless. Lopez, Morrison and Gonzalez would still exist... not to mention about 7 decades of commerce clause cases. In other words, not a damn thing would happen if you over-turned that.

Overturning the precedent would signal a shift in Con Law in general instead of just heaping more layers of bull on top.

But I suppose you are ignoratly trying to suggest that you want the entire theory of substantial affects on interstate commerce to be negated.

Yeah, I'm "ignoratly" trying to suggest that any dumb frick theory which says an activity that I am doing by myself and has little to no effect on anyone else should never be regulated under a clause that only authorizes power to regulate based on commerce crossing state borders.

It's intellectually dishonest and a pure power play to make up a test that creates the fictitious scenario where "everyone is doing it" even if they aren't, and then use that as a basis to usurp states rights.

Well then I'd be interested in hearing (1) your explanation as to what the Commerce clause does mean (2) how you would expect the practical commerical effects to unfold, and (3) why you feel that would be preferable.

I'm not going to write you a thesis on a message board. Go read a law review article about it.

Odd how we managed to get through 150 years of US history without deceiving the people about the law and still managed to survive, though.

I highly doubt I will get informed answers to either of those, which is why putting that in your signature line--which is your message to the world--is laughable and, interestingly, pretentious and ignorant at the same time.

That's funny, last time I checked, there are other Supreme Court Justices who are textualists and yet ten times smarter than you or me.

Your notion that any concept that doesn't fit your own personal idea of big state government is somehow pretentious or ignorant is just as ridiculous as you claim mine is.

That's right. These highly educated Justices don't know as well as you do.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I may be wrong, but isn't discussing politics on the forum a no-no?

 

[mschmidt64]

Without saying something like "Because it's true" can you explain why exactly you say that?

He he takes missteps, mental errors, bad angles, etc.

 

[mschmidt64]

I may be wrong, but isn't discussing politics on the forum a no-no?

I didn't bring it up. And this isn't really politics per se, it's law.