25 thoughts on “June 29, 2015: Booked”

1. The good news is that the Twins are still in second place in the ALCentral. The bad news is that they have slipped 5.5 behind Kansas City.

   1. The other bad news is that they're now a half-game out of the second wild card spot. The other good news is that they're still five games over .500. I think that, at the start of the season, someone had told us the Twins would be five games over .500 at this point, we'd have taken it gladly.

      1. Gladly. We listened to the game while painting yesterday, and... it was still exciting, all the way to the end. That's fun. And not the way it was the last few years.

   2. Can Ervin Santana hit?

2. The only time an advertisement on the bottom of a car makes sense:

   httpv://youtu.be/keiUSSCeGdc

3. ID the AU
   Pretty excited to finally pick up this autographed card...
   Which Twins player (former/current/future) signs his passport with this signature?
   

   Hint	SelectShow
   Someone get this guy a Fosters

   Answer	SelectShow
   Grant Balfour

   1. I had it narrowed down to two, and he was one of the two. For me, that's pretty good.

4. I referenced this the other day, but I'm finally back in my office near my copy of Reading Law , a book about statutory and contact interpretation coauthored by Justice Scalia.

   Actual Spoiler	SelectShow
   Chapter Four (out of seventy) is the Presumption Against Ineffectiveness Principle. In short, "A textually permissible interpretation that furthers rather than obstructs the document's purpose should be favored." So basically, SCOTUSCare got it correct in his own words when not trying to get to a political result.

   1. heh.

   2. Applesauce!

   3. 'Spoiler'	SelectShow
      In all fairness, isn't chapter 1 "plain language trumps all"? Or something like that?

      'Spoiler'

      SelectShow

      My point being, that book, and any similar "principled" approach to interpretation is... well, applesauce. It's all an attempt to get to an end result, and you can find the means you want to get there. It reminds me of Joe Posnanski's article on Pete Rose, and whether you forgive him or you don't. The arguments are secondary, at best. I'm also reminded of Louis Seidman, my con law professor. He is famously liberal, but he loved to point out that while it was 5 conservative justices who awarded Bush the presidency over Gore, it was 4 liberal justices who came to the opposite result.

      1. As to your first point, yes that basically is the chapter. However, the entire point of chapter four was unambiguous laws that contain a provision so internally inconsistent regardless of being completely unambiguous.

         1. httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlDydTf357Q

   4. 'Spoiler'	SelectShow
      My favorite moment last week was when Scalia lamented that this Court favors some laws over others!!!! Yeah, where was that critique when they invalidated key parts of the Voting Rights Act, which had been almost unanimously reauthorized not that long before? Pot, you are criticizing the kettle for its color.

      1. heh.

   5. The Redbook FTW.

5. I see today's CoC image and can only hear "Yesh, you're very smart. Shut up."

   1. And my first thought was, "He'll pinch my cheek. I hate that."

      1. As You Wish.

6. The starting catcher tonight for the Reds, Tucker Barnhart, against the Twins is my sister-in-law's nephew.

   1. Cool. Have you gotten to know him at all?

7. Andy McPhail gonna take over in Philly.

   1. I can hear the rejoicing all the way over here.

8. cheaptoy once again made me a bridesmaid in the cribbage tournament in the most painful series I've played in ages. I was skunked in the first match, and in the second, threw away the 7 when I was dealt 7-8-8-9-10, looking at the straight eight and ignoring the fifteens (I noticed about a half-second after throwing it). I lost only four points, but naturally lost in the end by one point.

   rpz vs. cheaptoy in the final!

   1. httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_L8aI8ldCY

Comments are closed.