All Activity

It doesn't matter 1 year extension. And to make matters worse.toby dad will help coach dbs and thomas brooks who was at w.o with them doing the championship days coming in to help coach the DL. Things really fixing to get interesting.FB has been on fire for over a day now. Hoping it settles down bcz, some of the kids has read some of the things that has been posted.hopinh for better days.

Tarkington just hired Dr. Randall O'Brian, recently retired from GCCISD, as their interim Superintendent. I am sure he will quickly bring stability and relief to Tarkington.

But, they just got a boost coach T is the new DC.toby dad will help with the DBs, and another familiar guy coming out of retirement to help toby.coach thomas brooks smh, CT says he is motivated and looking for the opportunity in Jasper!!! Smh.

DCTF prediction has the district finishing like this: 1. WO-S 2. Silsbee 3. Hamshire-Fannett 4. Shepherd 5. Jasper 6. Hardin-Jefferson Returning starters (offense/defense) WO-S 14 (7/7) Silsbee 12 (8/4) HF 15 (7/8) Shepherd 16 (8/8) Jasper 9 (4/5) HJ 11 (6/5) For the folks talking about how young Jasper was last year, they return the fewest starters of any of the teams. Doesn't make much sense.

S was on Fox News but it wouldn’t let me copy/paste. Google search: Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recently issued a strong dissent in Trump v. Barbara, in which the Court ruled 6-3 to uphold birthright citizenship and strike down the Trump administration's restrictions. Alito warned the decision would have "grotesque results", specifically encouraging "birth tourism" and presenting severe national security ramifications by extending citizenship to children of foreign adversaries. [1, 2] Alito also offered a sharp dissent regarding a 5-4 decision to uphold a Mississippi law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted post-Election Day. In that case, he warned the policy provides an invitation for "voter fraud" and could severely damage the trust Americans place in election integrity

Also, on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Slaughter. Articles I, II and III in the Constitution list the separation of powers. Article II gives the president complete control over the Executive Branch of government. The FTC is under the authority of the Executive Branch. It is therefore controlled by one person, the president. Trump came into office and fired two members of the FTC because they were appointed by Democrats and they did not agree with Trump‘s position. For that reason, Trump said, you’re fired! One of them, Rebecca Slaughter did not like that. He filed a lawsuit saying that you can’t fire me. A 1935 lawsuit ruled on by the Supreme Court said that Congress funds and created the FTC so the president cannot fire anyone on a commission that he and only he is ahead of. So basically, he cannot fire his own employee even though the his employee said, I don’t agree with your agenda, Mr. President. So Trump took to court and the circuit court said, yes, Mr. President, you were prohibited from finding members of a commission that you and only you are ahead of. You are forced to work with people that do not want to work for you or for your agenda Trump has been appealed to the Supreme Court. On Monday, the Supreme Court in a 6 to 3 decision said, what kind of nonsense is this. Sure, a president can fire a member of an executive commission that he alone controls. Who wants to work with a subordinate who can basically tell you to get screwed? So just because Congress does not like it, under the separation of powers, they do not control executive committees and commissions. Congress can create committees but once created, they are under the authority of the president and can be terminated. Again, the vote was 6 to 3 that the president alone in Article II, controls the Executive Branch. Any guesses on which 3 justices said to heck with Article II, the president should not be able to control all aspects of his administration?

When their castoffs start enrolling at LCM.

Mr. Mota's full obit: [Hidden Content]

I was thinking more along the lines of 'Manchurian Candidates.' Terrorists don't have to be citizens. Although, it could be argued that some members of our current government are already terrorists.

It was basically 5-4 on the Birthright Citizenship via the 14th. Kavanaugh said birthright citizenship didn't come from the 14th, but from a previous Law passed by Congress, and that made the EO illegal. So, he was in the minority opinion (4) along with Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas on that issue. He left an avenue in his split decision that would have allowed Congress to pass another Law defining citizenship without needing an Amendment because--in his view--the 14th didn't grant automatic birthright citizenship.

It was 6/3, I'm pretty sure. While I don't really like the outcome, I believe it was the correct ruling based on Constitutional law.

It's hard to disagree with that statement. There are two things you can do: Live with it or change it. The votes aren't there to change it, so....

I can break it down in one acronym "TDS". It was a 5/4 decision and one of those in the majority cannot define what a woman is. There is no telling how many terrorist will come back as an adult and us citizen and get away with an attack.

My youngest grandson may change your mind. I mean he's 3, but he's a bad 3. Lmao.

That Jasper vs WOS game will be insane.

OK, help me out here. You applauded tis decision. But you apparently understand that it was strictly for the slaves. How is this relevant now? The problem for America is the unintended consequences that has happened and will continue to happen. These are not good for America. So, explain why you think bad unintended consequences for America is good!

I was commenting on some of your other sentences... "For clarification: schools run a background check from the DPS database. If that comes back "clear", the school check references. Former employers are only technically allowed to provide 1. dates of employment 2. eligible for rehire yes/no 3. they may also provide safety info for DOT sensitive positions. Anything beyond the above listed information can expose the former employer to legal trouble." And my comment was they are ok to provide any factual information as long as the prospect signed a release and it is truthful and non-inflammatory. Your limitation of only 3 things that an employer can "technically" provide is incorrect. I've tested it in court. A few times...

Wouldn’t find me betting against you.

100% - my guess is he retires under a Democrat President

Incidentally, this is the second very major decision Roberts has been a disappointment on IMHO. First, he twisted like a contortionist to make sure Obamacare was considered legal, and allowed to be implemented. Now, he fails to see the functional flaws in this decision. Two decisions that have the greatest impact on every single person on U.S. soil or territory--legal, transient, illegal or not--he has shown himself to be anything BUT a conservative. They are probably the two biggest decisions from the SCOTUS during his tenure. The only one comparable would be Roe v Wade overturned.

They might not score on us again this year 😁🙃

How do the Bobcats look this year?

Yep. I'd enjoy hearing some insight after listening to the BU coach interview with Stepp. He seemed like he has the temperament to really help the program over there.

What happened to your "The Constitution is a living document, and changes with the times" argument? (That was one of the funniest things to me. Liberal/Progressives--who typically argue the Constitution is a living document--wanted to maintain an originalist stance, and vice versa for the originalist/textualists. The typical stances were almost flipped.) This was never going to fly as an EO, and it shouldn't be handled in that manner. Too important a question, and it should require a high bar to change. The arguments were fascinating. I think they opened a lot of people's eyes to issues they hadn't thought about. I don't agree with the interpretation. But, the--basically 5 to 4--decision shows it was a question that needed to be addressed. The Administration made a mistake in trying to push it through an EO. If they'd passed something through Congress, it may have been a different outcome. By going the EO route, they basically sealed the outcome from the start. Now, the SCOTUS ruling has made it all but impossible to change. Immigration, Visa, and entry laws can be addressed, but, they--and the enforcement--will change with Admins. It will be a similar issue to if it was addressed via an EO. The Administration DID receive a win for immigration control by being able to deny entry asylum unless on our soil. But, it will just mean illegal entry will try to pick up again. They also won on the issue of Temporary Protected Status actually being 'Temporary.' Maybe there can be a way to limit certain benefits going to underage citizens of illegal immigrants/students/temporary visitors that wouldn't rely on the citizenship question of the minor, since that's a major way illegal immigrants are receiving benefits they aren't due, and is the main draw for illegal immigration.