Didba

Getting our ass beat by a bunch of backups!

We are a joke 

1 minute ago, Tigger1985 said:

I have always thought our Lbers couldn’t cover tight ends. They watched the Ga game and we haven’t gotten any better 

It’s not just our LBers. That’s a positional mismatch for everyone. 

Just now, abw0004 said:

I can kind of see why they elected not to use it.  The team is used to doing it one way all season so it could potentially not be good to change it two or three weeks before the game.  Just my thought.  

Respectfully disagree with that logic. Using new technology in a jury trial, your logic stands for sure but in a football game?

So tired of this team showing up flat. That’s coaching. 

Hey, I found a great write-up that explains the whole process that occurred in Colorado from the district level to the Supreme Court:

https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/s/1Q0mPkdORa
 

I implore everyone to read it objectively because that forum is extremely tightly moderated and any use of unsubstantiated argument/rhetoric will be removed so it really does have people just objectively explaining what’s going on with these complex topics. I actually consider the forum to be moderate right comparatively to other legal forums on Reddit. 

12 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

I will be honest with you. I enjoy discourse with many on here. On both sides. I've found I can only take so much of it at a time, and take breaks from it, sometimes extended. Especially when things get ugly or personal. 

But a specific response from a person can completely bore me, yes. That's not a commentary on the entire discourse or even the entire conversation with one person, but this path of argument I've seen before and don't wish to engage much further, is my intent.

That’s fair, I took your bored comment differently but I see what you meant now. Apologies. 

10 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

But I'm not even sure why I'm asking. I know the answer, and the answer is predictable and bores me.

I wasn’t going to hop in on this because I’m just here to talk about the actual court proceedings but the above made me laugh so I had to chime in while talking to a man about a horse.

however, don’t be dishonest about being bored. You love this shiz, you love arguing over this stuff with these guys. All of you do on both sides. You are entertained and loving every minute of this adversarial conversation.

You wouldn’t be in these threads all the time sparring if you were bored by all of this. 

I know because I used to be the same way, it doesn’t do anything for me anymore as such I’m rarely in here unless something substantive has happened regarding court proceedings/developments in the law. 

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

So I guess a Red State do the same with Biden?  

It’s not a red/blue thing it’s just appellate courts following the standards of review required for appellate courts. 

but to answer your question; yes, if a lower court ruled the same exact stuff but against Biden the appellate court reviewing it would be bound by those findings of fact absent evidence of clear error/abuse of discretion by the lower court. 

my other posts explain it better so you may want to read them if you want a better understanding of standards of review for appellate courts. If you haven’t yet of course. 

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Not being a lawyer, this seems less than an honest approach to the ruling.  If hey know it will be overturned why rule the way they did?  Because they could?

Also, the standards of review for matters of law vs fact are pretty much the same in every state so what I am talking about isn’t some unique blue state law/circumstance. 

I would expect the same outcome from the same facts/decisions in any state. 

8 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Not being a lawyer, this seems less than an honest approach to the ruling.  If hey know it will be overturned why rule the way they did?  Because they could?

Because appellate courts don’t review matters of fact, they review matters of law.

They only reverse on factual matters when there is evidence of clear error/abuse of discretion by the original court. The Colorado SC had to give deference to the district court’s findings of fact  

I explained it in my original post in this thread in more detail if you want to go back and read it. You replied to it briefly. 

also, just because a court knew it is likely to be overturned doesn’t mean they can deviate from what they are required to do under the applicable standard of review.

The court was bound by the lower court’s factual findings. 

2 hours ago, Mikey said:

Colorado supreme court= threat to democracy.

Not really when you read the opinion and understand the difference between matters of law, matters of fact and the standards of review applied to each it’s pretty cut and dry.

I've already explained it but the Colorado Supreme Court was required to give deference to the district court’s finding of involvement in insurrection unless that finding was clear error/abuse of discretion which is a high bar. This is because it was a matter of fact. 

whereas, the issue of does section 3 apply to the president is a matter of law and the Colorado SC did not have to give any deference to the district court’s finding so it is a much lower bar that does not require a finding of clear error or abuse of discretion. 

SCOTUS will overturn on the fact issue of insurrection. 

15 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Do you believe it will be upheld by the SCOTUS? Already answered that.

Does the ability of a state Supreme Court to determine if people are guilty without trail scare you at all? Sure, but that’s not what happened here.

The State SC didn’t do that and my post explains why they had to find the way they did on the insurrection fact issue.

55 minutes ago, Didba said:

For one; I think SCOTUS overturns the district court on the issue of insurrection but upholds the CSC application of the section to the president. This allows Trump to still be on the ballot but wouldn’t carve out an exception for the president. 

@I_M4_AU already answered your question. 

38 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Even you know, there is something called the Fourteenth Amendment. 

I will bet you $5k this gets overturned on that ground. You down?

It’s gonna get overturned on the DC’s finding of insurrection. 

For one; I think SCOTUS overturns the district court on the issue of insurrection but upholds the CSC application of the section to the president. This allows Trump to still be on the ballot but wouldn’t carve out an exception for the president. 

opinion if anyone would enjoy some light reading:

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

I mean it seems fairly cut and dry to me. The district court made a determination, then carved out an exception for office of the president.

the Colorado Supreme Court then determined that the applicable constitutional section applied to the office of the president and reversed the district court. 

Because the standards of review for matters of law is much lower than for matters of fact, the CSC hands were tied to the district court’s finding of trump participating in an insurrection unless there was clear error or abuse of discretion as it is a fact issue.

Since it is a fact issue, the CSC had to give deference to District Court’s factual findings re: insurrection.

Whereas the issue of the exception for the president is a matter of law and the CSC did not have to give any deference to the district court’s finding. 

When you are aware of these caveats, the CSC holding makes a lot more sense. 
 

excerpt for standards of review: 

@I_M4_AU

So why wasn’t Scott out there to field it the punt?

why did we even field the punt?

why didn’t we have two receivers in the corner?

1 minute ago, metafour said:

Why are Ole Miss' two best receivers G5 transfers? You realize that Tre Harris, and Dayton Wade, who are #6 and #7 in the conference in receiving yards both came from La Tech and WKU respectively?

How are they so good? 

Your attempt to now shift this argument to "we took G5 players and G5 players are bad" might be even worse than whatever your first point was. Josh Allen played for a G5 school, as did hundreds of other NFL players lmao.

Hell, Mahomes played for Tech which is basically an FCS school /s 

2 minutes ago, DAG said:

Now watch us beat Bama this week and NMSU lose.  

I want to hear the rationale if that happens. 

Hell I’ll take it. 

Just now, NWALA Tiger said:

As u know, there are exceptions to everything

  Just like some 5* don't pan out. How many G5 transfers is lane kiffin playing compared to us?

Check 24/7 sports. Also, isn’t it possible that someone transferring from G5 is transferring because when they came out of high school they were graded low for a number of reasons but now have transferred to SEC schools because of XYZ reasons making them SEC caliber players?

I mean surely there are players at the G5 level that continue to develop and grow thus leading to their transfer?

Just now, NWALA Tiger said:

The proof is in the fact these guys are G5 transfers. There is a reason they signed G5 to begin with. Why didn't Bama, GA LSU sign them?

You just saying that isn’t proof was my point. I get what you are saying but others are saying the rankings don’t support that. 

This meltdown thread just keeps giving and giving. It’s entertaining on a Sunday where FedEx has screwed me for the 6th day in a row after losing my new laptop in their warehouse and being unable to “locate” it. 

2 minutes ago, NWALA Tiger said:

I'm getting blasted in here bro. Even though the proof is right there 

You are getting blasted because you claim the proof is right there but then when saying what’s your proof? You respond, “Your eyes”. That ain’t proof man, that’s opinion. Proof is recruiting ranks, stats, class ranking, position rankings, etc.