I’m not ignoring them; I’m reading them in their stupidly obvious context since Scocca is too willfully ignorant to do so.

My understanding is that it’s their duty and their job to at least have a hearing to confirm or deny the appointment

The filibuster was already nuked for lower courts. It was never going to survive a SCOTUS nomination anyway.

Again, let me come back to my original question—if Clinton nominates Brett Kavanaugh, will the GOP continue this line of opposition? If the answer is “no,” then your argument can’t be that they will oppose any nominee (which is still within their Constitutional prerogative, but whatever), but is that they will oppose…

It is, however, a silly criticism to extrapolate it into something he obviously did not mean.

This is a silly line of criticism. If Clinton nominated Brett Kavanaugh or Paul Clement, does anyone think McCain (or any other R Senator) would just reflexively oppose the nomination?

So we’re taking the wigger over the former NCAA football player who would have been in the NFL but for a back injury (from which he recovered well enough to still take over the WWE?)

The first time my cat farted I honestly thought an animal had died somewhere in the walls.

That’s what’s strange to me. I can see ways at least some of this testimony should have been admissible for the question of liability (Doe’s statements would be admissible as an opposing party admission, and testimony as to her truthfulness admissible for impeachment purposes).

The term of art is “a preponderance of the evidence,” which in colloquial terms is more probable than not.

Did Doe testify? I would assume that’s just being used as a colloquial term to impeach her credibility, not being offered as an expert opinion. Might still merit an objection, but the lawyer will just rephrase the question so it would be a waste of time even if you win the point.

Duty isn’t ordinarily an element of intentional torts like sexual assault. I’m having trouble following who is criticizing who, here, but it sounds like Father Bob just covered negligence in his 1L torts class, and Dean Martin isn’t a lawyer to begin with.

Let’s try this again, sailor. You say this one area is already underfunded? Why, it’s almost as though your entire screed begs the question of whether the people of Nevada want to raise taxes for educational spending irrespective of other programs.

Eh, if the Raiders are going to move and keep the name, I can think of worse cities than Vegas. “Las Vegas Raiders” seems more sensible than, say, “Salt Lake City Raiders” or “St. Louis Raiders.” But maybe that’s just me.

You never go full Kansas City.

If you can prove the NFL is interstate commerce, yeah they could, but who would sitting in Congress would support that? Few.

I would agree it affects interstate commerce—although Oliver Wendell Holmes might not—which provides a jurisdictional hook for the federal government to exercise some degree of control. But on the other hand we’re talking about a pretty significant arrogation of power to the feds vis-a-vis the states.

The Texans were an expansion team from day one—you’re probably thinking of the Oilers becoming the Titans when they moved to Nashville, but of course, “Oilers” didn’t make as much sense once they left Houston, so they changed it after two years there. Meanwhile, the Ravens were forced to change their name as part of a…

Or we could pass a federal law making it impossible — there seems to be clear Commerce Clause authority for this.

I assume it’s a medicine ball or some other weighted training ball.