Those would seem to be the obvious choices, I guess.

The amateur drafts are agreed to by the unions under each League’s Collective Bargaining Agreement, subject to federal labor law. Antitrust law is (generally) displaced is such a situation.

Amateur players both inside and outside the U.S. are not part of the players’ union, and so the union has no compelling reason to consider their wants and needs while negotiating with the league. Players’ unions across professional sports, meanwhile, have never hesitated to stick a shiv in amateur players in order to…

There is nothing unfair about interpreting his words to mean what they say. 

But I think the rest of us are entitled to take his words at face value.

I dunno, I was figuring I might just use my common sense to assign the obvious intent of his words as their meaning, but I guess I forgot to turn off my critical thinking module since this is a Republican we’re discussing.

This is like an episode of the Twilight Zone. The import of McCain’s words are obvious

If we want to be literal, as you seem to, it’s actually you and Scocca who are ignoring his words—“would” is a conditional verb that means that he actually is discussing the real world consequences of a Clinton Presidency, rather than hypotheticals—but that’s neither here nor there, since words usually aren’t literal.…

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.