CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com
New! Search comments:
(NOTE: Relevance, Author, and Article are not applicable for comment searches)
Funny, it looks like Blake Snell's performance couldn't hold Shane Greene's jock.
All Shane Greene did (at High-A Tampa) last night was 8.1 IP, 5 H, 1 R, 1 ER, 0 BB, 12 K, 8/3 GB/FB. Oh, and his 45/6 K/BB in 44.2 innings is damn impressive too (especially compared to Snell walking almost 7 men per 9, including last night, as a starter and before last night, he had 16 walks in 19.2 IP as a starter).
Not even worthy of a mention, though.
I don't disagree with you that he made a bad decision, and that it was, in theory, potentially lethal (insofar as driving with any sort of impairment, from weather to tiredness, is potentially lethal).
But you're simply incorrect that he was "released with insufficient evidence" -- that's what would have happened if he never had a BAC test, or for some reason the results were lost or spoiled.
Rather, he DID have a BAC test, and the results of that test conclusively proved that he was not driving under the influence as the law defines it (i.e., at least .08% BAC)
You're also flat-out incorrect about the DUI laws. The general rule is that any DUI in Florida, absent aggravating factors (such as manslaughter, serious bodily injury, or at least 2 prior DUI arrests), is a misdemeanor. And in order to *BE* a DUI, you have to have at least .08 BAC. There's no charge for adults over 21 driving non-commercial vehicles for misdemeanor "slightly impaired but not DUI".
Your assertion that "you don't need to exceed the legal limit to be guilty of DUI" is just not true as it applies to alcohol in Florida.
Yes, because nothing says makeup problems like being charged for DUI when the test shows that you're 20% BELOW the legal limit -- meaning that there's no chance whatsoever that the charge will stick.
If being wrongly charged with a crime of which you're clearly innocent is a "makeup problem", then we're really defining "major makeup questions" downward.
Well, at least Jeter wouldn't have to change his uniform number...
And maybe a Super Mario Bros. Mustache on said ham-face.
I know it's slightly off-topic, but I'd love to see Mario Manningham as Eli or Peyton with a ham-face.
A bit surprised that Isias Tejeda didn't make the "9 More" given his monster year (at, admittedly, only the GCL level). The Yankees have sick catcher depth in the system, even if some of them have to be moved elsewhere... Would love to hear your take on him.
That's why you need to read Bernstein's book. The point isn't to justify the result of Lochner -- it's to place it in context, which makes it seem far less radical than it's portrayed and really explodes the myth of a "radical laissez-faire" court, which was constructed as a strawman by the progressivists and their allies in the legal academy.
As Bernstein, the law at issue in Lochner was passed at the behest of the larger, industrial bakeries to screw over the smaller, non-factory, often-family owned/operated bakeries, most of which were run by immigrants (Jews and Italians). If you have enough labor to work in multiple shifts, as the larger bakeries did, the law doesn't bother you.
Looking to a lot of these laws (like the bans on hair braiding, or the Florida ban on non-licensed interior design, or the requirement in some state for a degree in mortuary science just to sell caskets, and yes, selling glasses like in Williamson v. Lee Optical), any alleged "health and safety benefit" is often just a fig leaf to protect the powerful or connected from competition.
Juiced, you do realize that Lochner had absolutely nothing to do with the commerce clause, right? And that nothing Congress did was at issue, because it was a state regulation (there's a big hint in the title of the case -- it's Lochner v. NEW YORK)?
So you've improperly conflated Lochner ("substantive" due process under the 14th amendment) the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, and a state regulation with congress' powers. You've also incorrectly asserted that Citizens United (under with the First Amendment restricts what Congress can do in the campaign finance area) with the Due Process clause.
Oh wait, you did that. There is no "higher level" of due process in Citizens United, as it is simply not an issue in the case. Nor is there ever any such thing as "levels" of due process. What there are are various standards of review in the equal protection context, but they have nothing to do with Due Process, Citizens United, or the First Amendment.
The court did not "personify" corporations in Citizens United. (You really should read the opinion, rather than relying on bizarre misstatements from the media about it). But since I doubt you'll do that, you should start here -- http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-medias-shameful-inexcusable-distortion-of-the-supreme-courts-citizens-united-decision/
No, it wasn't. The court explicitly stated that the hours restriction is insufficiently related to health or safety, unlike the various restrictions related to miners.
You should probably give the opinion another read. -- http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0198_0045_ZO.html
"The mere assertion that the subject relates though but in a remote degree to the public health does not necessarily render the enactment valid. The act must have a more direct relation, as a means to an end, and the end itself must be appropriate and legitimate, before an act can be held to be valid which interferes with the general right of an individual to be free in his person and in his power to contract in relation to his own labor."
"We think the limit of the police power has been reached and passed in this case. There is, in our judgment, no reasonable foundation for holding this to be necessary or appropriate as a health law to safeguard the public health or the health of the individuals who are following the trade of a baker. If this statute be valid, and if, therefore, a proper case is made out in which to deny the right of an individual, sui juris, as employer or employee, to make contracts for the labor of the latter under the protection of the provisions of the Federal Constitution, there would seem to be no length to which legislation of this nature might not go. The case differs widely, as we have already stated, from the expressions of this court in regard to laws of this nature, as stated in Holden v. Hardy and Jacobson v. Massachusetts, supra."
There's a lot in there. But your take is just not consistent with the case or the history.
I'd also be remiss if I didn't refer you to David Bernstein's masterful "Rehabilitating Lochner", which does an amazing job of contextualizing the opinion, the circumstances, and the historical evidence surrounding bakeries, why the law was passed (at the behest of large, established bakeries to screw over small family-run bakeries). It's a useful corrective to historically inaccurate impressions like yours.
The First Amendment's restrictions on campaign finance law have absolutely nothing to do with Due Process. They're entirely separate areas of law, and trying to link them is as incorrect as your gross misstatements of Citizens United and the jurisprudence relating to corporate speech.
You are correct that the constitution does apply to the government, but it is not restricted to "relationships between individuals and their govt". The constitution is a charter of negative rights, which means that it provides restrictions on the government.
One such restriction, which was rightly upheld in Lochner, was that the government was not allowed to arbitrarily interfere in an individual's contractual relationship without a valid health or safety reason.
"For a long time, due process was more about corporations than individuals—the Supreme Court spent decades saying you couldn’t have labor laws because they inhibited the free market, and any law that does that is messing with the right of due process."
Steven, this statement is both misleading and incorrect. Care to provide any citation to support your claim?
I assume you mean to refer to Lochner, but you wildly misstate the holding of the case, as well as the other cases relating to freedom of contract. The right vindicated by those cases is the right of an individual to be free from arbitrary, protectionist restrictions on labor without a valid health or safety reason.
Moreover, due process was never "more about corporations than individuals". Most due process cases were and are about not about the substantive due process to which you allude without naming it.
Given your solid writing in other areas, your misstatements of law and legal history are pretty disappointing.
Isn't Dustin Pedroia all the ill-tempered little person that MLB needs?
It doesn't need to be registered to be his IP, but for best practices, he should add a (c) symbol to the image and then register it with the copyright office.
Nothing on Banuelos's nice start last night?
Because Gordon + Warren > Buddy Carlyle + Warren
No recognition that all 4 Yankee infielders who started yesterday homered in the same game?
Of all the dramatic interviews that I have ever seen!
Some other thoughts.
To think of it another way, only X percentage of the population as a whole (for very small values of X) can pitch a baseball with a sufficient combination of sufficient velocity, movement, pitch variety, and accuracy so as to make the cutoff for a major league pitcher, or even a prospect who projects as one for any length of time.
While there is definitely correlation between each (i.e., they're not independent variables -- and some of the correlations could be negative, such as velocity/movement, movement/accuracy and velocity/accuracy), we should probably assume in the first instance that each is distributed, as are other human characteristics, on a Bell curve (or in this instance, a power law distribution may make more sense). No matter which distribution is a better fit (or even maybe something like a Boltzmann or Poisson?), major league pitchers as a group are in the far right tail of it.
And yes, I do agree that there is some advantage to pitching a lefty (ignoring park effects and pickoffs/running games). But that being said, lefties are only roughly 1/9 of the population as a whole. So if lefties were 1/9 of major league pitchers, (or pick a measure -- whether SIERA or xFIP -- and remove the worst major league lefties until you get to 1 lefty for every 8 righties), and the remaining lefties should be much more comparable to the overall set of righties in terms of velocity.
So it seems that with the right selection of "pitching distributions", you could actually quantify the handedness advantage of lefties (though you'd still have to tease out the base-running prevention effects and park effects).
No, the 40-man.
Does the Indians' system lead the nation in drifters?
Wow, Reddick's ability to take a walk seems beyond abysmal. How many of the handful of times he reached base without a hit were real walks, not HBP or IBB? He seems to have a good batting eye, and had a nice power surge, but without the ability to take a walk, I can't imagine that his 2nd half success will translate to the majors, especially in the AL East.
The lazy PED user recently traded to the White Sox graduated from a high school in Washington Heights (the north end of the island of Manhattan), not Brooklyn Heights (the south-east end of Long Island).
My apologies for the ambiguity -- I meant in terms of "a small guy who throws at speeds well beyond what his body type indicates".
Yeah, crazy that ManBan with another 6 IP with 6K didn't merit a mention. Dude's a lefty Lincecum.
" He also pointed out that leading the major leagues in runs allowed with an average of 3.42 a game helps create an upbeat attitude."
You know what else it helps with? Outscoring your opponent in a baseball contest! Good lord. They're winning because Yorvit Torrealba secrets winning pheromones??? This article reads like a parody.
The guideline was to avoid players in the AL East cause the division is so tough.