The catcher was still between third and home maybe 15-25 feet down the base line so I don’t think Bryant could have gotten past him before the ball was thrown to him.
A single-income household with the earner making $127k per year is earning more than about 85% of American households annually. A married couple both maxing out of the SS tax are earning more than 97% of American households annually.
I’m not opposed to that balancing test but it’s contrary to existing free exercise law under Employment Division v. Smith. I also think it’s different, not legally but morally, if it’s a baker in Denver, where hundreds of competitors are happy to serve you rather than say in Lufkin, where you could conceivably be blackballed by the entire town.
What does the fact that I live in an area where Rangers (and Astros) games are blacked out say about my knowledge of the sport?
Though on further consideration, I probably did see him a few times in the two ALDS series against Toronto.
But for the part of his body that grossly departed from his path in an effort to hit another player, he didn’t change his path? That’s your argument? I don’t give a shit about Odor as a person or a player. I’m not sure I’ve even seen Odor take a single at bat in my life so I really have no opinion of him at all other than he sucks for fantasy purposes. Sounds a lot like you’re the one with a bias here.
He changed his path to the bag for the purpose of initiating contact with the fielder. I don’t know what the fuck a “legit baseball play” means but it’s certainly not within the rules.
Yes, that's exactly what he's supposed to do. If you can't perform well enough to win the game by following the rules and not jeopardizing another player's safety, then you need to just take the loss and move on.
One purpose those numerous writers served was to correctly report the number of reporters at A-Rod's press conference as "roughly 200" as opposed to "thousands."
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/sports/baseball/18yankees.html
I can't recall him opining on the rule in a non-Fourth Amendment case so I'm curious if he feels the same way about other exclusionary rule issues. Like, if the cops beat and torture a guy to get a confession, does he believe the confession should be admissible and the person's only remedy is a civil action against the state?
Of course, Thomas would toss such a civil action on the basis of qualified immunity if suing the cops individually or under Monell if suing the governmental entity. See, e.g., Connick v. Thompson.
I need to read this. Does he really want to overturn Mapp? That is terrifying. He’s been an outspoken opponent of the exclusionary rule for a long time.
Of course they would have been looking for Paige. Aderholt told Stan they had people on Henry and they had people on Paige’s apartment. Until they had confirmation she wasn’t with her parents, they obviously would have considered she could be.