|
|
Post by beaverhuntr on Jul 10, 2018 11:49:47 GMT -7
I dont care for the pick but you cant knock Bidwill for rooting his high school / college buddy. I would have done the same even if I didnt agree with my buddies politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by lacardsfan on Jul 10, 2018 13:33:33 GMT -7
I dont care for the pick but you cant knock Bidwill for rooting his high school / college buddy. I would have done the same even if I didnt agree with my buddies politics.
That is fine for him to do that. But using the AZ Cardinals twitter and website is, in my opinion, bad taste. I personally am a liberal. I do not agree with this SC pick. His values do not align with mine. I am also a business owner. I am not going to go on my company webpage and blast the Scotus pick? That alienates conservatives that may work under me. They are entitled to their own opinion and I dont think that they should have to hear my diatribe on my political views.
Just like I said during the Anthem Protests, sure, you can do it. But prepare to be alienated and or unemployed. Thats what protests are about. Sure, walk across that bridge, but you may have the dogs and batons unleashed on you.
Sure, use your NFL team as a platform to pump up your conservative buddy. But be prepared to have your union member employees to not be very happy about it.
Actions have consequences. If you believe strongly enough in your cause and are prepared to take on the consequences, then I am proud to live in a Country that allows you to take that stand.
|
|
|
|
Post by knobby on Jul 10, 2018 13:50:49 GMT -7
The Supreme Court, and any court for that matter should not be influenced politically at all. Judges are supposed to rule based on the Constitution and law, not political sentiment, bias or external pressure.
That it has become a political football (pardon the pun) is almost evil in that it corrupts the intent of the third branch of government. Were it apolitical, there would be no comments here about MIke Bidwill endorsing an old friend for a job he feels that friend is very qualified to hold. But it isn't, so there are. (great summation, right?)
Here I am making a political (sort of) post where it should not be - but I'm among many others, so maybe the mods will be a little lenient with all of us?  |
|
|
|
Post by lacardsfan on Jul 10, 2018 14:25:37 GMT -7
The Supreme Court, and any court for that matter should not be influenced politically at all. Judges are supposed to rule based on the Constitution and law, not political sentiment, bias or external pressure.
That it has become a political football (pardon the pun) is almost evil in that it corrupts the intent of the third branch of government. Were it apolitical, there would be no comments here about MIke Bidwill endorsing an old friend for a job he feels that friend is very qualified to hold. But it isn't, so there are. (great summation, right?)
Here I am making a political (sort of) post where it should not be - but I'm among many others, so maybe the mods will be a little lenient with all of us?
Well judges make decisions. And those decisions are based off of education and analysis of the law. It is why they call it the Minority "Opinion" or the Majority "opinion". So while we can hope that Scotus should be A political that is impossible. If you feel that the law makes corporations people then your "opinion" will lean more conservative. And vice versa. The Scotus are not robots spitting out a well designed algorithm on constitutional law. They are human beings, that interpret and regurgitate thoughts just like the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by ConnecticutCard on Jul 10, 2018 15:01:13 GMT -7
No matter how anyone here feels about the pick, MB and everyone who retweeted, or linked to it on FB, got absolutely blasted. That alone shows you it was a bad decision, for all of them, not just MB. Even Schefter got blasted on twitter for mentioning it
|
|
|
|
Post by knobby on Jul 10, 2018 15:31:00 GMT -7
The Supreme Court, and any court for that matter should not be influenced politically at all. Judges are supposed to rule based on the Constitution and law, not political sentiment, bias or external pressure.
That it has become a political football (pardon the pun) is almost evil in that it corrupts the intent of the third branch of government. Were it apolitical, there would be no comments here about MIke Bidwill endorsing an old friend for a job he feels that friend is very qualified to hold. But it isn't, so there are. (great summation, right?)
Here I am making a political (sort of) post where it should not be - but I'm among many others, so maybe the mods will be a little lenient with all of us?
Well judges make decisions. And those decisions are based off of education and analysis of the law. It is why they call it the Minority "Opinion" or the Majority "opinion". So while we can hope that Scotus should be A political that is impossible. If you feel that the law makes corporations people then your "opinion" will lean more conservative. And vice versa. The Scotus are not robots spitting out a well designed algorithm on constitutional law. They are human beings, that interpret and regurgitate thoughts just like the rest of us.
Valid points, but confirmation that humans are usually always flawed to some extent, and decisions are overruled. Judges take an oath, but it seems to make little impact. (IMO)
Let's drop it here and let the talking heads blather on, as they always do. The topic is on the edge of political discussion, and that is better done elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by lacardsfan on Jul 10, 2018 15:48:58 GMT -7
All very interesting questions, I personally think that we should stick with the everyone is human approach.
I always look it like this. I live in Los Angeles, I see the world completely different on a day to day basis than my wife's father that lives in nowhereville kansas. He sees money come out of his paycheck and never sees really any benefit from it. He home schooled his kids and drives the same road for the past 40 years.
Me? I see kids at public school, libraries being built, pot holes, hopefully, getting fixed. etc etc
So, lets say we both become Supreme Court Justices. We know the law, it is how the law is interpreted that is in question. Can a law that says, taxation is okay with proper representation be interpreted differently by two different people? Absolutely, his representation consists of his one police officer in his HUGE (sqft wise) town. Mine has multiple police departments in a small area. So both of us would interpret a law quite differently.
I respect his point of view because I am able to understand where he is coming from. Unfortunately in my case the feeling isnt reciprocal. lol
That is crazy about the computers, will have to look into that story.
By the way, I think we have gone completely outside of the laws of the message board. This will be my last post on it, but looking forward to everyone else posts.
How about ROSEN BABY (There hopefully now I wont get banned ;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Zaz on Jul 10, 2018 16:05:27 GMT -7
The Supreme Court, and any court for that matter should not be influenced politically at all. Judges are supposed to rule based on the Constitution and law, not political sentiment, bias or external pressure.
That it has become a political football (pardon the pun) is almost evil in that it corrupts the intent of the third branch of government. Were it apolitical, there would be no comments here about MIke Bidwill endorsing an old friend for a job he feels that friend is very qualified to hold. But it isn't, so there are. (great summation, right?)
Here I am making a political (sort of) post where it should not be - but I'm among many others, so maybe the mods will be a little lenient with all of us?
Well judges make decisions. And those decisions are based off of education and analysis of the law. It is why they call it the Minority "Opinion" or the Majority "opinion". So while we can hope that Scotus should be A political that is impossible. If you feel that the law makes corporations people then your "opinion" will lean more conservative. And vice versa. The Scotus are not robots spitting out a well designed algorithm on constitutional law. They are human beings, that interpret and regurgitate thoughts just like the rest of us.
Agreed. Scotus 100% apply their opinion. For example, before Scalia died, he gave an interview on Roe v Wade. He opposed it. Reason being the Constitution says "right to fair trial". He applied his personal beliefs to say that an unborn fetus deserves a fair trial. Thats as opinionated as they come. So yes, it matters whos selected. And no, that selection should not be talked about via a professional football teams media platform, MICHAEL. |
|
biggs
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1,076
|
Post by biggs on Jul 10, 2018 16:18:11 GMT -7
Well judges make decisions. And those decisions are based off of education and analysis of the law. It is why they call it the Minority "Opinion" or the Majority "opinion". So while we can hope that Scotus should be A political that is impossible. If you feel that the law makes corporations people then your "opinion" will lean more conservative. And vice versa. The Scotus are not robots spitting out a well designed algorithm on constitutional law. They are human beings, that interpret and regurgitate thoughts just like the rest of us.
Agreed. Scotus 100% apply their opinion. For example, before Scalia died, he gave an interview on Roe v Wade. He opposed it. Reason being the Constitution says "right to fair trial". He applied his personal beliefs to say that an unborn fetus deserves a fair trial. Thats as opinionated as they come. So yes, it matters whos selected. And no, that selection should not be talked about via a professional football teams media platform, MICHAEL. If Judges were impartial the list of Judges Trump has been picking wouldn't have come from the Heritage foundation. |
|
|
|
Post by anAlypticOutlaw on Jul 10, 2018 16:35:44 GMT -7
Give it a rest.Great pick for SC. Disrespecting my flag started this bs, where was the same outrage? Since We have officially endorsed Pres. Trump's Associate Justice nominee, are we, The Franchise, supporting neoconservationism, now? Should I be voting fascism come Nov.? -A Good German /S PS How much long til Preseason? . . . (****). |
|
|
|
Post by knobby on Jul 10, 2018 16:52:21 GMT -7
No matter how anyone here feels about the pick, MB and everyone who retweeted, or linked to it on FB, got absolutely blasted. That alone shows you it was a bad decision, for all of them, not just MB. Even Schefter got blasted on twitter for mentioning it
Expect anything different from Facebook or tweetie fans? Consider the sources. Both are the equivalent of backyard fence gossip and 'can you top this'... 
Wake me when something important happens. Like football. Or personnel changes.
|
|
rdo3
Starter
Warning
Posts: 324
|
Post by rdo3 on Jul 10, 2018 17:05:06 GMT -7
there is one difference, a huge one. mb is the owner, in essence it is his account. its just like any other business, the owner gets to decide. owners can do things non owners cant because they won it. can I drive your car any time I want? no, that would be stealing it. can you drive your car any time you want? sure, no problem. its yours. owners get to do many things the emoplyees don't. bill bidwell put it very bluntly once. "this is not "your" team. this is not "our" team. this is MY team. unless we want to buy ownership its his decision not ours. your decision will come with things you own, like do you buy buy season tickets. I am semi autistic so I see things from a different angle than most people but to me this is simple. does he own it? yes. then he can do what he wants with it. you can disagree with his assessment, but not his right to use what is his.
|
|
|
|
Post by calicardsfan on Jul 10, 2018 18:07:36 GMT -7
MB can't even keep his mouth shut after his GM just got busted for DUI (2nd time) and he decides to use his billion dollar FOOTBALL company's media accounts to advertise his support of a candidate on an extremely divisive topic that has nothing to do with FOOTBALL. Whether the SCOTUS nomination should be a divisive issue or not is a conversation for another place.
What benefits were there for the Arizona Cardinals from MB using the team's media accounts to promote his support of a candidate? Especially when the NFL and owners tell their players to stick to football and stay out of "politics". I'm a staunch conservative and even I see this as blatant hypocrisy.
|
|
|
|
Post by rooseveltcardsfan on Jul 10, 2018 19:16:13 GMT -7
I agree with some members that it is questionable judgment for MB to use the Cards media platform to highlight classmates' support for the latest SC pick. Note also that MB and other classmates did not directly endorse a political view, only honored their close friend's good fortune last night. Still, the Cards owner leaves us all wondering about team leadership and decision-making this past 10 days. MB's decision on SK is still pending (or maybe silence is the decision). MB could be hoping that the SK situation just blows over. The tweet could be both a congrats to his friend and a distraction. 2 birds 1 stone. I think the the whole separation of politics and football went out the door with the flag protest thing. So if anyone is in favor of the protests, but against the congrats tweet. It feels somewhat hypocritical. If the team announced a breakthrough with DJ’s extension/contract, before they make an announcement re: SK immediate future. Then I would keep my eye out for the broom and rug that is coming. Amending ^^ post They can’t sweep it under the rug... The last 4-5 days have been horrible.. the FO is a mess now! I hope the coaches are communicating with the players.. Just a huge mess on the business side.. |
|
|
|
Post by Dry Heat on Jul 10, 2018 23:24:59 GMT -7
Bidwill went to high school with Bret Kavanaugh, remained friends for 37 years, attended his wedding, both became attorneys. He then joined in writing a letter with over 100 classmates, from all political ideologies, to endorse the character of the guy they all knew. Being from D.C., I’m sure many if not most of these people are Democrats. There was nothing about any political issue in the letter he co-signed or in his tweet, just support for the character of an old friend. People need to relax. (I have to double post since we dont have multi-quote on this new forum) I have no problem with him endorsing his friend. Not in the least. The question is: why on the AZ Cardinals platform? Would it be appropriate for you to send a mass email at your company telling everybody who you endorse for President? Your workplace and your politics are separate, and should be. Hows this any different? Cards are a business. A company. Mike is a civilian. Who he supports politically has no place in the Cards business. Big difference. Bidwill signs the checks. It’s good to be the king. And while it may not be good business to speak out personally through a business you own, be it religion or politics or anything else, it happens all the time. It’s his money, his property, so it’s appropriate for him to do with it what he will. The same doesn’t go for employees. |
|
