VakAttack

This is, of course, incorrect.

Higher than he "should" for Iowa fans, lower than he "should" for Iowa haters. I use the quotations because it's an inherently subjective exercise. Where I think he ranks is likely different than where many people think he ranks. What do you value? When did he compete during your life? These things will all cause people to move him up and down in the rankings.

Pyles just Tweeted that he was guessing Truax to Penn State. Pastry's attempt to reverse troll Iowa falls flat again.

I'm planning on being there! Hope to see some of you!

So the presumption for next year is 165: Facundo 174: Starocci 184: Unclear but possibly Truax 197: Brooks ? Also, hard to believe Starocci won't come back to try to get an unprecedented 5th title with the opportunity, but I know he has his eyes on the UFC.

Truax wrote that he's graduating and looking to continue wrestling in grad school.

Great minds.

To be clear, there is no buzz on him going to Iowa outside of a poster on HR saying "you think Iowa will go after him?" I haven't heard anything definitive on him, but the initial rumors were Penn State, though that doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless Brooks is staying down, or (as has been supposed) Truax wants to go back down to 184, that would leave either Haines or (more likely) Facundo on the bench.

1. It's not good optics to the people who already don't like them. 2. How is it "necessarily an admission that your point of view is not mainstream"? The reason they don't have a majority is because McConnell gamed the system and because of the happenstance of when Justice Bader Ginsburg died. This is poppycock. EDIT: Just to add here, the party having a majority of the Justices is almost always a matter of happenstance of the death of a Justice, not about which party holds the more mainstream opinion. For that you would look towards which party gets more votes from the American people. 3. They didn't "advise and consent." They didn't even consider it or give any reasoning where, again, a very middle of the road candidate with nothing controversial in his history was just ignored and not because of who he was as a jurist, but because "the American people should have a chance to weigh in on who nominates the next Justice?" They should? My understanding was these were non-elected positions? it was a gaming of the system. 4. "You want it both ways...." You're just projecting here. My logic is consistent. The Republicans shouldn't have done what they did. However, since they did it, the Democrats choice is either to do another shitty thing, or just get trampled. If you and I were playing Monopoly, and we agreed before hand that nobody could puchase properties until they had gone around the board twice, but then you just started immediately buying properties, I'm an idiot if I wait until I have gone around the board twice because "that was the agreement." You are the logically inconsistent one here: you want it to be ok for the Republicans to game the system to their advantage and not be ok for the Democrats to also game the system. 5. Bork was voted down with the assistance of SIX Republican Senators. This was a bipartisan dismissal of his nomination. And, notably, he, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh, all got their hearings. Anything remarkable come out of the Merrick Garland hearings? Wait, they didn't happen?

@Formally140 was talking about Penn State approaching athletes directly at NCAAs, don't know if this is what he meant.

Here's why I disagree: under the normal course of business, we would have had one Democrat nominated justice (Garland) and two Republican nominated justice (I would guess it would have been Gorsuch and Coney Barrett). Instead, the Republicans "stole" one. Expansion of the court is the Democrats only move to take that power back. In a governmental apparatuses that used to be held to "norms", that's no longer the case, and if one side isn't going to abide by norms, the other side shouldn't be abiding by those norms that the first side is flouting, otherwise the second side will jsut get trampled. It's made worse by the fact that Republicans are, as of now, a minority party within the population, and they're governing w/ significant minority policies, like their stances on abortion, etc. These are policies that don't even have full-throated support WITHIN their party, let alone throughout the country. Another example: registration for gun owners. The most hardcore Republican I know, one of my best friends, is adamant that people should have to register their guns and that it should be treated similar to cars and driver's licenses. I'm talking a guy at the shooting range every couple of weeks. He swears his range buddies all feel the same way. I can't speak for them, I'm only at the range occasionally. I know the cops I deal with in my job (I'm a Public Defender) all feel that way, too. And yet, right now, the governor of my state is pushing to remove requirements for even carrying a concealed firearm, let alone firearm ownership at all. The Republicans, of whom I was until very recently a registered member (although, to be fair, that was more from laziness, I was the definition of a RINO for the last several years and am now NPA) seem to be controlled by a very loud minority within their own party.

You can keep trying to change what I'm saying all you want, that's fine. I never said any of that. Lets just put it here: if the Republicans just confirm Merrick garland, the very milquetoast centrist judge who was also highly qualified, we're not here. They didn't. Legal, but shitty. It's a gaming of the system. If one side is going to game the system, you're foolish to try to play by rules the other side is refusing to follow. That doesn't mean I think the expansion of the court is not shitty.

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.