<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: US Senators Confuse Supreme Court With Sports</title>
	<link>http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/us-senators-confuse-supreme-court-with-sports-25049</link>
	<description>Celebrity sports gossip since 2001</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 04:51:50 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: runescape money</title>
		<link>http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/us-senators-confuse-supreme-court-with-sports-25049#comment-106527</link>
		<author>runescape money</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:59:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/us-senators-confuse-supreme-court-with-sports-25049#comment-106527</guid>
		<description>I must be watching different coverage - Help point out the "hate"..... Once one gets past the prejudice then only those that are behind will speak of and with it and harbor the hate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I must be watching different coverage - Help point out the &#8220;hate&#8221;&#8230;.. Once one gets past the prejudice then only those that are behind will speak of and with it and harbor the hate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: runescape gold</title>
		<link>http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/us-senators-confuse-supreme-court-with-sports-25049#comment-106525</link>
		<author>runescape gold</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:55:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/us-senators-confuse-supreme-court-with-sports-25049#comment-106525</guid>
		<description>Woo, Those Republicans never learn.
How do they think they are?
...... they had better get some new leadership fast!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Woo, Those Republicans never learn.<br />
How do they think they are?<br />
&#8230;&#8230; they had better get some new leadership fast!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pescarojo</title>
		<link>http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/us-senators-confuse-supreme-court-with-sports-25049#comment-106079</link>
		<author>pescarojo</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:02:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/us-senators-confuse-supreme-court-with-sports-25049#comment-106079</guid>
		<description>Yep, your country is pretty f*cked.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yep, your country is pretty f*cked.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam J</title>
		<link>http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/us-senators-confuse-supreme-court-with-sports-25049#comment-105793</link>
		<author>Adam J</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:35:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/us-senators-confuse-supreme-court-with-sports-25049#comment-105793</guid>
		<description>Easy there, freshman.

Laws are objective. Interpretations of them as they apply to situations and cases are subjective. Again, judges issue opinions. If there were no subjectivity involved, then S.C. cases in which there were anything but a unanimous decision would be completely unacceptable.

Try reading less into the wrong words and appreciating the main crux of the article: politicians are blathering, pandering morons.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Easy there, freshman.</p>
<p>Laws are objective. Interpretations of them as they apply to situations and cases are subjective. Again, judges issue opinions. If there were no subjectivity involved, then S.C. cases in which there were anything but a unanimous decision would be completely unacceptable.</p>
<p>Try reading less into the wrong words and appreciating the main crux of the article: politicians are blathering, pandering morons.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chrystal K.</title>
		<link>http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/us-senators-confuse-supreme-court-with-sports-25049#comment-105786</link>
		<author>Chrystal K.</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:08:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/us-senators-confuse-supreme-court-with-sports-25049#comment-105786</guid>
		<description>I just read about day 2, but I didn't get a chance to read about day 1.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just read about day 2, but I didn&#8217;t get a chance to read about day 1.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marcus</title>
		<link>http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/us-senators-confuse-supreme-court-with-sports-25049#comment-105764</link>
		<author>Marcus</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:55:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/us-senators-confuse-supreme-court-with-sports-25049#comment-105764</guid>
		<description>You write: "Judges are subjective arbiters; there’s a reason they issue “opinions” in the Supreme Court: because they actually are opinions."

"our country is so f*cked"

Is that an opinion or reality? Are you saying that Law is subjective yet umpires are objective? Really? So there's an objective strike zone (well-defined with parameters) but no objective law? Your argument assumes a moral or objective basis, a meaningful measure that exists outside of you. What is it?

I'm sure that you really do believe in the reality of objective law, and would assert it the first time you were wronged. 

Ironically, the politicians seem to be adhering to your view -- i.e., the law stuff is too subjective so lets try to ground it in a sports reference, which is apparently more real -- not opposing it. There's your subjective universe where there is only opinion about law. Indeed, we are "f*cked."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You write: &#8220;Judges are subjective arbiters; there’s a reason they issue “opinions” in the Supreme Court: because they actually are opinions.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;our country is so f*cked&#8221;</p>
<p>Is that an opinion or reality? Are you saying that Law is subjective yet umpires are objective? Really? So there&#8217;s an objective strike zone (well-defined with parameters) but no objective law? Your argument assumes a moral or objective basis, a meaningful measure that exists outside of you. What is it?</p>
<p>I&#8217;m sure that you really do believe in the reality of objective law, and would assert it the first time you were wronged. </p>
<p>Ironically, the politicians seem to be adhering to your view &#8212; i.e., the law stuff is too subjective so lets try to ground it in a sports reference, which is apparently more real &#8212; not opposing it. There&#8217;s your subjective universe where there is only opinion about law. Indeed, we are &#8220;f*cked.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

