|
Post by redbeard2008 on Mar 27, 2015 12:30:57 GMT -5
You may want to take a wait and see approach on hyping up Bajema. She has nice size and length, but that's mitigated by a very low vertical and she doesn't have the foot speed/explosiveness/dynamic athleticism of others. I wasn't too surprised not to see her on Top 50/Next35 Juniors despite being a UW recruit. Niece is undersized but very quick. IMO she should be ranked higher. I've tried to use qualifiers (such as "might") with Bajema. I do think she is an intriguing prospect, albeit based on scanty public information (quotes from her coach, etc.). She's a multi-sport athlete from a small out-of-the-way school, and not at the region's top club (economic decision?). We'll see after she shows up if she's a player or a bench-sitter. I'm not assuming she's either. If Jones stays on the outside, UW will need two middles for 2016, with only one in the recruitment pipeline (Niece). Bajema could end up at MB, it seems to me.
|
|
|
Post by spikerthemovie on Mar 27, 2015 16:53:40 GMT -5
Will it be harder for Notre Dame (and Purdue, Indiana, etc) to recruit female athletes to a state that now not only welcomes, but encourages, discrimination? #BoycottIndiana
|
|
|
Post by Wiswell on Mar 27, 2015 18:47:05 GMT -5
I am sitting in an Indiana hotel right now, 20 miles from South Bend. Aside from a long planned trip to Indy, they wont be seeing my dollars soon, and I have to pass through here and normally stay here a few times a year.
It woukd behoove the schools in In to issue statements indicating they will not utilize their "rights" under the law. And, now, I think we take my post and spikers and move it to the politics board.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Mar 27, 2015 20:00:35 GMT -5
I am sitting in an Indiana hotel right now, 20 miles from South Bend. Aside from a long planned trip to Indy, they wont be seeing my dollars soon, and I have to pass through here and normally stay here a few times a year. It woukd behoove the schools in In to issue statements indicating they will not utilize their "rights" under the law. And, now, I think we take my post and spikers and move it to the politics board. the following states have the same religious freedom restoration acts AL, CT, FL, ID, IN, IL, KS, KY, LA, MO, MS, NM, OK, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, and VA). While the reason Indiana has adopted this makes me ill, the truth is many states have it, Clinton passed the legislation federally in 93. This is politics.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Mar 28, 2015 14:51:54 GMT -5
I am sitting in an Indiana hotel right now, 20 miles from South Bend. Aside from a long planned trip to Indy, they wont be seeing my dollars soon, and I have to pass through here and normally stay here a few times a year. It woukd behoove the schools in In to issue statements indicating they will not utilize their "rights" under the law. And, now, I think we take my post and spikers and move it to the politics board. the following states have the same religious freedom restoration acts AL, CT, FL, ID, IN, IL, KS, KY, LA, MO, MS, NM, OK, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, and VA). While the reason Indiana has adopted this makes me ill, the truth is many states have it, Clinton passed the legislation federally in 93. This is politics. I don't want to highjack this thread (although I wouldn't mind putting it to bed), but you really shouldn't believe everything Fox News tells you. The Indiana act and federal act (signed by Clinton) are very different bills. See: Fox News' Dishonest Defense Of Indiana's Anti-LGBT "Religious Freedom" Law
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Mar 28, 2015 15:48:30 GMT -5
the following states have the same religious freedom restoration acts AL, CT, FL, ID, IN, IL, KS, KY, LA, MO, MS, NM, OK, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, and VA). While the reason Indiana has adopted this makes me ill, the truth is many states have it, Clinton passed the legislation federally in 93. This is politics. I don't want to highjack this thread (although I wouldn't mind putting it to bed), but you really shouldn't believe everything Fox News tells you. The Indiana act and federal act (signed by Clinton) are very different bills. See: Fox News' Dishonest Defense Of Indiana's Anti-LGBT "Religious Freedom" LawI have never watched Fox news in my life, nor am I a republican or evangelical christian. I pretty clearly stated the bill makes me ill. Indiana is getting hammered for their motivation for it, and that they are adopting it now where that kinda thing really doesnt fly anymore. Back to Jmac now
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Mar 28, 2015 17:16:42 GMT -5
I have never watched Fox news in my life, nor am I a republican or evangelical christian. I pretty clearly stated the bill makes me ill. Indiana is getting hammered for their motivation for it, and that they are adopting it now where that kinda thing really doesnt fly anymore. Back to Jmac now It has been widely disseminated. I don't watch Faux News either. Still, just because the IN act apes the Fed act's title, doesn't mean it is the same act. The Fed act is relatively narrow (although jimmied wider by conservatives on the Supreme Court), the IN act very broad.
|
|
|
Post by Orpheus on Mar 28, 2015 17:48:33 GMT -5
I have never watched Fox news in my life, nor am I a republican or evangelical christian. I pretty clearly stated the bill makes me ill. Indiana is getting hammered for their motivation for it, and that they are adopting it now where that kinda thing really doesnt fly anymore. Back to Jmac now It has been widely disseminated. I don't watch Faux News either. Still, just because the IN act apes the Fed act's title, doesn't mean it is the same act. The Fed act is relatively narrow (although jimmied wider by conservatives on the Supreme Court), the IN act very broad. To parse some of the fed act out through historical context, and to kill time until I head out for a BBQ: In the early 20th century, the Supreme Court applied its highest scrutiny to any state or fed gov't entity attempting to burden a religious practice (read: a sincere practice, not something conveniently attributed to religion). In ordinary English, when a law, regulation, ordinance, etc. interfered with someone's 1st amendment right to exercise their religious freedom, to pass that highest scrutiny the government had to demonstrate the burden was justified by a compelling reason and that the law was the least restrictive manner of achieving the state's objective. In action, laws that barred individuals from receiving employment benefits, when the only reason they couldn't find employment was for honoring the sabbath, were generally struck down as not meeting that scrutiny. Other laws were upheld, such as requiring that citizens register for social security, even over religious objections that giving a child a "number" would destroy his/her sense of unique spirit (I forget the denomination, but this did reach SCOTUS). Around the 90's, the Supreme Court was faced with Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith, where individuals who were fired for peyote use and later denied unemployment benefits challenged Oregon's drug laws banning peyote on the basis of the freedom to exercise their religious Native American practices. Perhaps the Supreme Court realized a few things, particularly that the challengers may win under this strict scrutiny, as well as the fact that the modern era was much more regulated than pre-New Deal era. In this regulated state, everyone was losing certain freedoms, and it followed that certain religious freedoms would have to be burdened to maintain safety and other compelling state objectives, such as outlawing certain drug use. What emerged was a new rule for determining whether a law may burden a religious practice, much relaxed from the strict scrutiny applied earlier in the century. SCOTUS said that if a law that was generally applicable to everyone (and not singling out a religious group) and neutral (it's object was not to discriminate), then it could legally burden a religious exercise. In doing so, it upheld Oregon's ban on peyote use. This new rule still protected religious practices, even obscure ones, as the next major case to be heard under this rule protected Santeria ritualistic sacrifices of animals when the Church of Lukumi defeated an ordinance that on its face appeared to be generally applicable and neutral but ultimately was riddled with exceptions for anything other than these ritualistic animal sacrifices. Even so, Congress fought back by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The name might be misleading, but the act literally called out the Supreme Court and said "you guys got it wrong in Employment Div. v. Smith." It reinstated the highest scrutiny test to determine the legality of laws that burden religious exercise. Eventually, a case challenging RFRA made it back to the Supreme Court, which struck down RFRA as it applies to the states. In City of Boerne, the Court held that Congress exceeded its authority under the constitution to pass RFRA as applied to the States, but upheld it as applied to the federal government. English: if a state law burdens a religious exercise, the test to determine if it is legal remains the Smith general applicability and neutrality analysis. If a fed law burdens a religious exercise, RFRA applies and the test is the strict scrutiny requiring a compelling justification and the least restrictive means of burdening a religious exercise. By the way, that test is rarely satisfied and is considered a death knell, but since RFRA no longer applied to state laws, it really lost its teeth. And not much has changed since then. You might ask what Indiana's developments have to do with any of that, and you'd be asking a wise question. Don't fall for any red herrings.
|
|
|
Post by preschooler on Mar 28, 2015 17:52:38 GMT -5
Perhaps folks or the mods should move the last part of the thread to the political forum?
|
|
|
Post by Orpheus on Mar 28, 2015 17:54:25 GMT -5
Lol, sorry. Good call.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Mar 28, 2015 18:41:52 GMT -5
You can self moderate your post! ?
|
|
|
Post by Orpheus on Mar 28, 2015 18:53:29 GMT -5
You can self moderate your post! ? You can't?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2015 20:43:52 GMT -5
Which has the better record next year: Notre Dame or Washington?
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Mar 28, 2015 21:25:00 GMT -5
Which has the better record next year: Notre Dame or Washington? Is this a serious question?
|
|
|
Post by Mocha on Mar 28, 2015 22:36:10 GMT -5
Which has the better record next year: Notre Dame or Washington? Is this a serious question? Sadly, yes.
|
|