Scholar
LightNews

Robert Black

Videos
H-index: 18
History 54%
Political science 16%
more

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
Is it that they've decided to ignore the Appropriations Clause wholesale or just that they're dumb and can't tell what the laws are, part one million
2 1 13

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
Ahh.

Well in theory this is just an argument that Americans are not suited for self government
1 3

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
I can't see it, what's OP?
1 2

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
Question: is the book tour part essential to this? Supreme Court Justices giving talks isn't especially new I think? Brennan, Black, Marshall I think, all did so
1 4

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
His review of Tolstoy's Take about Lear is absolutely savage
3

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
I do love the law lords

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
Lolololololol
1

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
My wild, out-there idea is go FULL House of Lords. Prominent people from all walks of American society can be given a lifetime appointment. The Senate can advise on legislation, hold committee hearings, etc. to get the benefit of their wisdom. BUT no actual hard power.
2 13

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
Oh yeah I don't disagree lol, I'm just saying like, this is why WWI still happened!
3

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
None of the events described above touch on the Continent lol
1 5

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
No, the difference between a 1982 appointee and a 2005 appointee (oldest of the Republicans except for Thomas, who's his own, uhhh, Thing) is extremely salient for the point I'm making
2

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
You could have the amendment say like, whereas he was a rebel and a traitor and thereby forbidden to hold office under this Constitution...
1 8

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
They weren't appointed in 1982 though
1 1

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
Interesting juxtaposition of holy and unholy tbh

Like, it's precisely the unholy that creates the holy?
1 4

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
Just how the Brewers drew it up, three solo home runs
1 13

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
Super duper ideally you'd annul his entire presidency by constitutional amendment. Void ab initio under Section Three would also be nice though.
1 1 13

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
No, I do not lol. But the conversations have been borderline interesting.
1 3

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
Oh, yeah, although in my experience it's often the Circuit as a whole that takes a case en banc, not just the panel (not that the latter is unheard of)
2

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
It would take some doing!!
2

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
The 1961 teams (Rangers and Angels) have never met in October. Neither the Padres nor the Royals (the other '69 teams) have met any of their cohort. And then obviously there's never been a Marlins/Rockies series, let alone a Rays/Diamondbacks one.
3

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
Phillies and Giants (1883) have only met once, the 2010 NLCS.

Then you jump all the way to the 1986 NLCS between the Mets and Astros (1962)

The Nationals and Brewers met for the 2019 Wild Card game, and the Jays and Mariners already played in the 2022 Wild Card round.

That's it.
1 4

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
1970, 1972, 1975, 1979. And then also 1990. And the 2013 Wild Card game.

That's six meetings. All other pairings have seven total (prior to the upcoming ALCS).

Braves and Cubs (1876) met in the 1998 and 2003 NLDS. Cardinals (the other 1882) played the Pirates in the 2013 NLDS.
1 2

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
Yep, that was also the first one that occurred to me. I believe that is the only other time that two post-1901 teams of the same vintage have met in a Division Series or later!
2

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
(Why exclude 1901? Because that's when the eight original American League teams all came into the league at once. They've met lots of times. That's boring.)

So the big exception is that the Reds and the Pirates both date to 1882, and they met in the NLCS in the 1970s... a lot
1 4

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
Yeah he's been right on the edge for me for a while.
1 1

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
Bit of random curiosity: so I saw someone mention that this upcoming ALCS is going to see the two 1977 expansion teams meet

So I wondered, how often do two teams of the same vintage (not 1901) meet in the postseason?

Answer: not that often... with one big exception
4 12

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
Sort of! Although I don't envision the Supreme Court Justices being members of/chosen from the Nat'l Court of Appeals. Which, itself, can be very large and have panels and all that.
1 2

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
Sure is!
1

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
It's like half the motivation for the whole thing. Cert-as-is clearly isn't working. But appeal as of right is utterly unworkable. Not a lot of possible ways to square that circle.
1 2

by Robert Black

hurricanexyz.bsky.social
Mmm, sure. The basic system is so familiar at this point that it's a little difficult to imagine something different.
3 6

References

Fields & subjects

Updated 1m