The Supreme Court started issuing its slam-dunk per curiam opinions a couple weeks ago.
Moore v. United States - It's long been noted that there's a massive disparity in sentences between dealing cocaine and dealing the same amount of crack cocaine (I'd always heard ten -- it's actually closer to 3 to 6 times as lengthy, some sources indicate that the sentence for an amount of crack is equivalent to the sentence for 100x as much cocaine). It's also widely noted that this means that African-American drug dealers are punished in a vastly disproportionate fashion, since as Bob Roberts noted in his eponymous film "Don't do crack. Crack is a ghetto drug."
Moore gets convicted for dealing crack, gets a guideline sentence in the Northern District of Iowa for dealing crack, appeals to the Eighth Circuit, who affirms the sentence saying the Court is correct to ignore the disparity, because that's what the guidelines say.
The Supreme Court then decided Kimbrough v. United States last year, which says that the district courts can consider the disparity in imposing sentences under the guidelines (although, post-Booker, one can effectively ignore the guidelines as well, since they are purely advisory -- making the holding somewhat puzzling to me). So the Supreme Court remanded Moore's case to the Eighth Circuit -- which then essentially decides that the district court DID consider the disparity, since it was aware of Booker!
Moore, proceeding pro se, appealed to the Court which issued its per curiam opinion in his favor last week. So now the case is once again remanded to the Eight Circuit with orders to remand to the Northern District of Iowa, which may now use its discretion. Of course, everything the judge said leads me to believe that he is going to continue to apply the law, because indeed he has taken an oath to uphold it, and there are a number of judges who still apply the guidelines as rigidly as ever.
So, after all this, Moore has another sentencing proceeding, but it remains to be seen whether it will be any more favorable.
I have been a longstanding opponent of the federal sentencing guidelines. In a country with the largest percentage of its population in prison, including more than a million for drug offenses, the system needs meaningful reform. The sentencing guidelines for about a decade and a half helped to make this reform impossible, by requiring sentences that would be served in their entirety based on a rigid system of generalities. So if you had a one-time dealer of a few grams of crack and you had a dealer with lord knows how much marijuana, the crack dealer's going away for a lot longer, even though his role in the drug problem in the country was far more incidental. While there's obviously room for debate that any amount of marijuana warrants a lesser sentence because marijuana doesn't directly lead to deaths -- 1) it does lead to Pink Floyd cover bands and 2) it's still completely illegal.
But now that the guidelines are completely advisory, this case should never have been heard. The Court is essentially issuing an advisory opinion because it's issuing an opinion on guidelines that themselves are completely advisory. All it can do is order a court to use its discretion. It's starting to get close to a standing problem, as far as I'm concerned, because Moore's sentencing concern is not all that likely to be resolved by a favorable outcome.
In other news, the Supreme Court's website went down while I was writing this. The one hit must be all the site is set up to take in a day, which would explain its inexplicable "we're clearly trying to hide this site" URL -- of www.supremecourtus.gov. As you may know, the .gov designation is a designation for governmental entities in the United States alone. Thus, the whole us at the end of it is redundant, unless the Supreme Court is going to issue an opinion granting independence to the Confederate States of America, and they're just preparing for this next country.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Shut up, shut up, shut up
When you are so dumb that you cannot identify two Supreme Court cases with which you disagree (and instead mention one that's been stripped completely bare by subsequent abortion case law), you are incapable of answering questions at a debate, you are incapable of sounding like an adult who has a basic sense of literacy, and you can't go a goddamn minute without saying "nucular" or "you betcha"...perhaps you should be more careful about saying things.
Palin lambasts Obama for being tied to "terrorists".
I am free to criticize Barack Obama for whatever relationship he has with Ayers. I will say that it's not the best "friendship" one can have...to the extent it exists, which is pretty sketchy.
However, you are not me. And that is why you have no right to utter such lies (and they are unabashedly lies...even if Ayers were Obama's best friend, that's links to one single solitary "terrorist" (who, incidentally, was acquitted and ought to sue you for slander anyway), not multiple "terrorists", so you're still a liar.
You, however, person who has on more than occasion addressed the convention of a party that has been founded on treason against the United States -- person MARRIED to a person who "was" a member of said treasonous secessionist independence party -- you do not. You praised the Alaskan Independence Party's good work in your last address to the convention. Exactly what work did you mean? The part where they support seceding from the United States? The part where the party was created because its creator decided he was "an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."
Even at its most charitable, the Alaskan Independence Party still calls for federal laws to simply not apply in Alaska, so that Alaskans can have limited government (so we can assume they're still not endorsing McCain/Palin).
The United States has a First Amendment that permits you to be as stupid as you find necessary when speaking in public. Just remember that next time you find it necessary to praise those who no longer wish to be subject to its rule.
Palin lambasts Obama for being tied to "terrorists".
I am free to criticize Barack Obama for whatever relationship he has with Ayers. I will say that it's not the best "friendship" one can have...to the extent it exists, which is pretty sketchy.
However, you are not me. And that is why you have no right to utter such lies (and they are unabashedly lies...even if Ayers were Obama's best friend, that's links to one single solitary "terrorist" (who, incidentally, was acquitted and ought to sue you for slander anyway), not multiple "terrorists", so you're still a liar.
You, however, person who has on more than occasion addressed the convention of a party that has been founded on treason against the United States -- person MARRIED to a person who "was" a member of said treasonous secessionist independence party -- you do not. You praised the Alaskan Independence Party's good work in your last address to the convention. Exactly what work did you mean? The part where they support seceding from the United States? The part where the party was created because its creator decided he was "an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."
Even at its most charitable, the Alaskan Independence Party still calls for federal laws to simply not apply in Alaska, so that Alaskans can have limited government (so we can assume they're still not endorsing McCain/Palin).
The United States has a First Amendment that permits you to be as stupid as you find necessary when speaking in public. Just remember that next time you find it necessary to praise those who no longer wish to be subject to its rule.
Load your guns, homeowners...
Fannie Mae forgives the loan of the 90-year-old woman who shot herself while being evicted.
Well done, Fannie Mae.
1) You just got bailed out by the government, so those are now publicly-owned mortages that you're giving up because this lady shot herself.
2) You're teaching all sorts of negative life lessons by forgiving someone who takes irrational action in response to foreclosure. Now, we can expect a lot more people to at least contemplate this kind of stupid act in the hopes that it will protect them somehow.
Who in their right mind would make this loan in the first place? It's a mortgage for $45,000 that they actually gave to an 86-year-old woman. It might be one of the best examples of predatory lending. But that doesn't give us any reason to forgive a loan to a woman just because she doesn't have the sense not to kill herself.
Well done, Fannie Mae.
1) You just got bailed out by the government, so those are now publicly-owned mortages that you're giving up because this lady shot herself.
2) You're teaching all sorts of negative life lessons by forgiving someone who takes irrational action in response to foreclosure. Now, we can expect a lot more people to at least contemplate this kind of stupid act in the hopes that it will protect them somehow.
Who in their right mind would make this loan in the first place? It's a mortgage for $45,000 that they actually gave to an 86-year-old woman. It might be one of the best examples of predatory lending. But that doesn't give us any reason to forgive a loan to a woman just because she doesn't have the sense not to kill herself.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
We'll get to law someday...
In the meantime, there's baseball.
Rather than come up with original content, I'm going to raise my arms in curiosity at Jayson Stark's occasional ability to perceive baseball Rather than be consistently ignorant of the game, he just finds one egregious error (AL MVP) and argues it as speciously as possible.
NL MVP: He declares that it's Pujols over Ryan Howard. I agree. Howard was a huge drag on the Phillies for two months, his numbers are really not good anywhere aside from home runs and RBIs and a real most valuable player is valuable all season, not just two months (if two months were sufficient, obviously Manny gets more consideration. Pujols is a superior defender at first also, which helps him. I disagree with the idea that Carlos Delgado could possibly warrant consideration, because like Howard, he's getting consideration based on half a season, which while I think is passable for a specific-position category (we'll get there) when the dominance is so far beyond any one else in the leagye, Manny doesn't have that kind of separation between himself and Albert. Lance Berkman also had one of the best seasons in the league, but did it mostly when his team was a disaster, which holds him down. Stark got it right, if not for the right reasons.
1. Pujols
2. Lance Berkman
3. Aramis Ramirez
4. Ryan Howard
5. Ryan Ludwick
AL MVP: Dustin Pedroia is so absolutely wrong it's not even funny, and Justin Morneau is little better. Name the whole list of categories where Dustin Pedroia is the best on his team. If you accurately identified "virtually nothing except receiving unwarranted praise," you are the winner. Pedroia's had a great year, but he doesn't show up any higher than second if you are a sentient creature who only votes for Red Sox players. Stark identifies extra-base hits as a category where he beat even Josh Hamilton and Miguel Cabrera. Well, one, Cabrera had a very inauspicious debut for much of 2008, helping to lead the Tigers to fourth. Two, he has fewer extra base hits than the best Red Sox candidate, Kevin Youkilis. Youkilis also proceeded to hit for a similar average, but score a higher OBP (.017 points) and absolutely blow Pedroia away in slugging (.080 higher), leading to an OPS nearly 100 points higher than his teammate, who is admittedly not very tall. Alas, Jayson Stark failed to identify Danny Ray Herrera or Billy Wagner as his NL Cy Young winner, so he doesn't even have consistency to keep him warm at night. Pedroia is an excellent fielder, Youkilis is an excellent fielder who has been called upon to play at both first and third as well as a few innings in the outfield. But aside from good facial hair choices and a greater ability to steal bases (20/21 for Pedroia, an unforgiveable 3/8 for Youkilis), Pedroia has nothing. He scored more runs because he had Youkilis hitting behind him. Specious argument sunk.
I don't know that I have a clear answer. My vote would probably go to Youkilis, because Carlos Quentin ruined his chances with the selfish injury that may cost the White Sox their division, Morneau isn't even worth considering with an .883 OPS (neither is Grady Sizemore, for that matter, since he's not even the Indians' MVP) and Mauer is a closer call as a catcher OPSing .867, but it's a stretch.
1. Youkilis
2. Josh Hamilton
3. Carlos Quentin
4. Pedroia
5. Cliff Lee
NL Cy Young
Stark picks Tim Lincecum, who is the most defensible choice. But I don't agree. C.C. Sabathia was far and away the best pitcher in the National League this year, with an ERA a point less than Lincecum's, even though Sabathia's gotten treated brutally, having pitched on short rest repeatedly and racking up more pitcher abuse points than anyone would ever hang on a starter who had some chance of returning. The only basis for not giving it to Sabathia is that he hasn't started enough games, otherwise, he's too obvious for words. But of the 16 starts he's made, he's won 10 of those, thrown complete games in 6 and shutouts in 3, allowed 2 or fewer earned runs in 12 of them, and two of the starts where he allowed more than two were starts he made on three days rest. He's not allowed more than four runs (earned or otherwise) since the Brewers acquired him and single-handedly pushed them within a game of the playoffs, put up an ERA of 1.78 (nearly a point below Lincecum) WHIP of 1.04 (.14 lower than Lincecum's), and done it in a home stadium and division much less friendly to pitchers. Santana or Lincecum is basically a coin flip, they both pitch in pitchers' parks and were robbed of wins by lousy bullpens and run support.
1. Sabathia
2. Johan Santana
3. Tim Lincecum
4. Brad Lidge
5. Brandon Webb
AL Cy Young
There's only two candidates in the AL, and the morons who vote for Francisco Rodriguez are dazzled by numbers even more meaningless than a 20-win threshold. Lee hasn't pitched as many innings or struck out as many batters, he's won more games and been more consistently effective. Halladay's thrown 8 games where he's allowed 4 earned runs or more. Lee's only thrown nine where he's allowed more than 2 earned runs (three of which have also come in his last three starts, reflecting how positively unhittable Cliff Lee was in the vast majority of this season). It's a close call, but Lee just never let his team lose games. The Indians lost 7 of his 31 starts, but Lee only left the game trailing in 3 of them. The Blue Jays have lost 13 of Halladay's starts, he's left trailing in 11.
As for the other awards, I'm too tired to plow forward with them now. I posted.
1. Cliff Lee
2. Roy Halladay
3. Ervin Santana
4. Jon Lester
5. Zack Greinke
Rather than come up with original content, I'm going to raise my arms in curiosity at Jayson Stark's occasional ability to perceive baseball Rather than be consistently ignorant of the game, he just finds one egregious error (AL MVP) and argues it as speciously as possible.
NL MVP: He declares that it's Pujols over Ryan Howard. I agree. Howard was a huge drag on the Phillies for two months, his numbers are really not good anywhere aside from home runs and RBIs and a real most valuable player is valuable all season, not just two months (if two months were sufficient, obviously Manny gets more consideration. Pujols is a superior defender at first also, which helps him. I disagree with the idea that Carlos Delgado could possibly warrant consideration, because like Howard, he's getting consideration based on half a season, which while I think is passable for a specific-position category (we'll get there) when the dominance is so far beyond any one else in the leagye, Manny doesn't have that kind of separation between himself and Albert. Lance Berkman also had one of the best seasons in the league, but did it mostly when his team was a disaster, which holds him down. Stark got it right, if not for the right reasons.
1. Pujols
2. Lance Berkman
3. Aramis Ramirez
4. Ryan Howard
5. Ryan Ludwick
AL MVP: Dustin Pedroia is so absolutely wrong it's not even funny, and Justin Morneau is little better. Name the whole list of categories where Dustin Pedroia is the best on his team. If you accurately identified "virtually nothing except receiving unwarranted praise," you are the winner. Pedroia's had a great year, but he doesn't show up any higher than second if you are a sentient creature who only votes for Red Sox players. Stark identifies extra-base hits as a category where he beat even Josh Hamilton and Miguel Cabrera. Well, one, Cabrera had a very inauspicious debut for much of 2008, helping to lead the Tigers to fourth. Two, he has fewer extra base hits than the best Red Sox candidate, Kevin Youkilis. Youkilis also proceeded to hit for a similar average, but score a higher OBP (.017 points) and absolutely blow Pedroia away in slugging (.080 higher), leading to an OPS nearly 100 points higher than his teammate, who is admittedly not very tall. Alas, Jayson Stark failed to identify Danny Ray Herrera or Billy Wagner as his NL Cy Young winner, so he doesn't even have consistency to keep him warm at night. Pedroia is an excellent fielder, Youkilis is an excellent fielder who has been called upon to play at both first and third as well as a few innings in the outfield. But aside from good facial hair choices and a greater ability to steal bases (20/21 for Pedroia, an unforgiveable 3/8 for Youkilis), Pedroia has nothing. He scored more runs because he had Youkilis hitting behind him. Specious argument sunk.
I don't know that I have a clear answer. My vote would probably go to Youkilis, because Carlos Quentin ruined his chances with the selfish injury that may cost the White Sox their division, Morneau isn't even worth considering with an .883 OPS (neither is Grady Sizemore, for that matter, since he's not even the Indians' MVP) and Mauer is a closer call as a catcher OPSing .867, but it's a stretch.
1. Youkilis
2. Josh Hamilton
3. Carlos Quentin
4. Pedroia
5. Cliff Lee
NL Cy Young
Stark picks Tim Lincecum, who is the most defensible choice. But I don't agree. C.C. Sabathia was far and away the best pitcher in the National League this year, with an ERA a point less than Lincecum's, even though Sabathia's gotten treated brutally, having pitched on short rest repeatedly and racking up more pitcher abuse points than anyone would ever hang on a starter who had some chance of returning. The only basis for not giving it to Sabathia is that he hasn't started enough games, otherwise, he's too obvious for words. But of the 16 starts he's made, he's won 10 of those, thrown complete games in 6 and shutouts in 3, allowed 2 or fewer earned runs in 12 of them, and two of the starts where he allowed more than two were starts he made on three days rest. He's not allowed more than four runs (earned or otherwise) since the Brewers acquired him and single-handedly pushed them within a game of the playoffs, put up an ERA of 1.78 (nearly a point below Lincecum) WHIP of 1.04 (.14 lower than Lincecum's), and done it in a home stadium and division much less friendly to pitchers. Santana or Lincecum is basically a coin flip, they both pitch in pitchers' parks and were robbed of wins by lousy bullpens and run support.
1. Sabathia
2. Johan Santana
3. Tim Lincecum
4. Brad Lidge
5. Brandon Webb
AL Cy Young
There's only two candidates in the AL, and the morons who vote for Francisco Rodriguez are dazzled by numbers even more meaningless than a 20-win threshold. Lee hasn't pitched as many innings or struck out as many batters, he's won more games and been more consistently effective. Halladay's thrown 8 games where he's allowed 4 earned runs or more. Lee's only thrown nine where he's allowed more than 2 earned runs (three of which have also come in his last three starts, reflecting how positively unhittable Cliff Lee was in the vast majority of this season). It's a close call, but Lee just never let his team lose games. The Indians lost 7 of his 31 starts, but Lee only left the game trailing in 3 of them. The Blue Jays have lost 13 of Halladay's starts, he's left trailing in 11.
As for the other awards, I'm too tired to plow forward with them now. I posted.
1. Cliff Lee
2. Roy Halladay
3. Ervin Santana
4. Jon Lester
5. Zack Greinke
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Nebraska: They shoot horses, don't they?
Although I can hardly call myself prescient for anticipating that this would be a difficulty after the Nebraska Supreme Court made the long-overdue move to determine that the electric chair is cruel and unusual, it has finally happened.
And, wouldn't you know, Jon Bruning is trying to do things that the legislature will not, just ipse dixit (he thinks he's governor, even though he has been thwarted at all his turns, by Dave Heinemann, Tom Osborne, and the fact that Jon Bruning is from outside of Omaha, which really cuts into his political efficacy). He is trying to say that people on death row can still be executed, just not by electrocution.
As usual, Jon Bruning is dead wrong.
1) The Nebraska Supreme Court struck down electrocution as a method of execution in the state of Nebraska in the case of State v. Mata (underwhelming opinion would be attached here, but I can't find it at the moment, and I'm lazy).
2) The legislature had not provided an alternative in the event of such a ruling (as opposed to Georgia, where the George Supreme Court struck down electrocution and everyone on death row just got penciled in for a lethal injection appointment).
3) The Nebraska unicameral has twice called for the death penalty to stop and been blocked by gubernatorial veto. Once, in 1979, the state actually voted to eliminate the death penalty. Then-governor Charles Thone vetoed it. In 1999, the unicameral voted for a moratorium on the death penalty, which Governor (until recently, Secretary of Agriculture, apparently anticipating a need for fertilizer?) Mike Johanns vetoed it.
4) Jon Bruning already fought this battle in the Unicameral and lost. He fought to change the method of execution in the state of Nebraska to lethal injection, fearing that electrocution would be ruled unconstitutional. Blocked primarily by death penalty abolitionists -- people who thought (rightly) that maintaining electrocution would mean Nebraska would simply refuse to execute people or be unable to carry out a death sentence -- he lost and Nebraska remained the only state in the United States with electrocution as its sole method of execution. No dispute about legislative intent.
5) Sentencing orders often stipulate a method of execution. There can be no doubt that you're entitled to rely upon a sentencing order. If your sentencing order says you're in a federal penitentiary, they can't ship you off to state prison. If your sentencing order says 20 years, they don't get to keep you for 30. And if your sentencing order says "death by stoning" and stoning is invalidated, you don't just get to white out the "by stoning" part and start anew with whatever punishment you can concoct.
6) The legislature has still not stipulated a method of execution, so even if you were to argue that those whose sentencing orders did not specify electrocution were still subject to the death penalty (and I would argue that the precedent the Supreme Court set in Furman v. Georgia indicates that no one in Nebraska should be regarded as under a death sentence unless they were convicted after the Nebraska Supreme Court ruling in State v. Mata), you definitely don't get to execute anyone unless you can figure out how to do it with pure confusion.
7) Incidentally, the Nebraska Supreme Court disagrees with me on the last point, having reaffirmed Raymond Mata's death sentence while stating that his execution by electrocution would be unconstitutional. However, the Court also assumes that the method-of-execution statute is entirely severable from the procedures by which the court sentenced Mata. Of course, if Mata's sentencing order said "death by electrocution", you really have to be willfully blind to actually believe that to be the case.
8) I absolutely love that CNN reports Nebraska would consider the gas chamber. The gas chamber itself has already been struck down in courts and is used as the sole method of execution in zero states. While it would stand up in the Roberts court, which has prescribed a new analysis of the Eighth Amendment that essentially writes it out of existence, I have serious doubts that the Nebraska Supreme Court would accept it as an alternative, and I suspect it may be the only alternative the unicameral WILL support, given its tendency to staunchly limit the death penalty rather than put in an express lane to the death house.
Lastly, a note to CNN, I don't give a damn what the parents of victims have to say about the Eighth Amendment. JoAnn Brandon, if you want revenge, then do it. Go and gun down your daughter's murderers during the middle of their trial, and you can feel vindication and know that you're little better than the people who killed your son or daughter. If JoAnn Brandon wants to watch the killers of her daughter suffer, then she is free to do whatever she can to make that happen and will be punished accordingly. But CNN, don't put in your bloody-shirt waving into an article about an amendment that is supposed to make our government a more reasoned body than its individual components. No one disputes that murderers deserve to be punished harshly. But it's not the state's job to exact anyone's revenge, and if that's what you think they're doing, then you need to pay the costs of this execution, which are enormous. I know many would disagree, but it's not the state's job to be killing people, regardless of whether it involves torture.
And, wouldn't you know, Jon Bruning is trying to do things that the legislature will not, just ipse dixit (he thinks he's governor, even though he has been thwarted at all his turns, by Dave Heinemann, Tom Osborne, and the fact that Jon Bruning is from outside of Omaha, which really cuts into his political efficacy). He is trying to say that people on death row can still be executed, just not by electrocution.
As usual, Jon Bruning is dead wrong.
1) The Nebraska Supreme Court struck down electrocution as a method of execution in the state of Nebraska in the case of State v. Mata (underwhelming opinion would be attached here, but I can't find it at the moment, and I'm lazy).
2) The legislature had not provided an alternative in the event of such a ruling (as opposed to Georgia, where the George Supreme Court struck down electrocution and everyone on death row just got penciled in for a lethal injection appointment).
3) The Nebraska unicameral has twice called for the death penalty to stop and been blocked by gubernatorial veto. Once, in 1979, the state actually voted to eliminate the death penalty. Then-governor Charles Thone vetoed it. In 1999, the unicameral voted for a moratorium on the death penalty, which Governor (until recently, Secretary of Agriculture, apparently anticipating a need for fertilizer?) Mike Johanns vetoed it.
4) Jon Bruning already fought this battle in the Unicameral and lost. He fought to change the method of execution in the state of Nebraska to lethal injection, fearing that electrocution would be ruled unconstitutional. Blocked primarily by death penalty abolitionists -- people who thought (rightly) that maintaining electrocution would mean Nebraska would simply refuse to execute people or be unable to carry out a death sentence -- he lost and Nebraska remained the only state in the United States with electrocution as its sole method of execution. No dispute about legislative intent.
5) Sentencing orders often stipulate a method of execution. There can be no doubt that you're entitled to rely upon a sentencing order. If your sentencing order says you're in a federal penitentiary, they can't ship you off to state prison. If your sentencing order says 20 years, they don't get to keep you for 30. And if your sentencing order says "death by stoning" and stoning is invalidated, you don't just get to white out the "by stoning" part and start anew with whatever punishment you can concoct.
6) The legislature has still not stipulated a method of execution, so even if you were to argue that those whose sentencing orders did not specify electrocution were still subject to the death penalty (and I would argue that the precedent the Supreme Court set in Furman v. Georgia indicates that no one in Nebraska should be regarded as under a death sentence unless they were convicted after the Nebraska Supreme Court ruling in State v. Mata), you definitely don't get to execute anyone unless you can figure out how to do it with pure confusion.
7) Incidentally, the Nebraska Supreme Court disagrees with me on the last point, having reaffirmed Raymond Mata's death sentence while stating that his execution by electrocution would be unconstitutional. However, the Court also assumes that the method-of-execution statute is entirely severable from the procedures by which the court sentenced Mata. Of course, if Mata's sentencing order said "death by electrocution", you really have to be willfully blind to actually believe that to be the case.
8) I absolutely love that CNN reports Nebraska would consider the gas chamber. The gas chamber itself has already been struck down in courts and is used as the sole method of execution in zero states. While it would stand up in the Roberts court, which has prescribed a new analysis of the Eighth Amendment that essentially writes it out of existence, I have serious doubts that the Nebraska Supreme Court would accept it as an alternative, and I suspect it may be the only alternative the unicameral WILL support, given its tendency to staunchly limit the death penalty rather than put in an express lane to the death house.
Lastly, a note to CNN, I don't give a damn what the parents of victims have to say about the Eighth Amendment. JoAnn Brandon, if you want revenge, then do it. Go and gun down your daughter's murderers during the middle of their trial, and you can feel vindication and know that you're little better than the people who killed your son or daughter. If JoAnn Brandon wants to watch the killers of her daughter suffer, then she is free to do whatever she can to make that happen and will be punished accordingly. But CNN, don't put in your bloody-shirt waving into an article about an amendment that is supposed to make our government a more reasoned body than its individual components. No one disputes that murderers deserve to be punished harshly. But it's not the state's job to exact anyone's revenge, and if that's what you think they're doing, then you need to pay the costs of this execution, which are enormous. I know many would disagree, but it's not the state's job to be killing people, regardless of whether it involves torture.
Friday, July 4, 2008
The Should-Be All-Star Game - NL Edition
Arizona: Brandon Webb, Dan Haren
Atlanta: Chipper Jones*, Brian McCann*
Chicago: Geovany Soto, Kerry Wood
Cincinnati: Edinson Volquez*, Adam Dunn
Colorado: Matt Holliday*, Taylor Buchholz
Florida: Hanley Ramirez*, Dan Uggla
Houston: Lance Berkman*
Los Angeles: Russell Martin
Milwaukee: Ben Sheets, Ryan Braun
New York: David Wright, Johan Santana, Billy Wagner
Philadelphia: Chase Utley*, Pat Burrell*, Cole Hamels, Brad Lidge
Pittsburgh: Xavier Nady, Nate McLouth
St. Louis: Albert Pujols, Ryan Ludwick
San Diego: Adrian Gonzalez
San Francisco: Tim Lincecum
Washington: Cristian Guzman
Catchers (3): Brian McCann*, Geovany Soto, Russell Martin
First Basemen (3): Lance Berkman*, Albert Pujols, Adrian Gonzalez
Second Basemen (2): Chase Utley*, Dan Uggla
Shortstops (2): Hanley Ramirez*, Cristian Guzman
Third Basemen (2): Chipper Jones*, David Wright
Outfielders (7): Xavier Nady*, Pat Burrell*, Matt Holliday*, Adam Dunn, Nate McLouth, Ryan Ludwick, Ryan Braun
Starting Pitchers (7): Edinson Volquez*, Cole Hamels, Brandon Webb, Tim Lincecum, Johan Santana, Ben Sheets, Dan Haren
Relief Pitchers (4): Brad Lidge, Kerry Wood, Billy Wagner, Taylor Buchholz
Toughest calls:
Ryan Braun or Carlos Lee? - Lee's leading the NL in RBIs, but he didn't make my list here. Originally, I'd had Braun added because the Brewers needed a representative, and I hadn't looked at pitching. Lee has the edge based on the superior OPS, but Braun has stolen a couple of bases more and has had a solid defensive season. The breaking point is that Lee's park factor is significantly more favorable than Braun's.
Who for the Nationals? Guzman and Jon Rauch both have arguments here. Rauch is almost as worthy as Billy Wagner in that closer role, but Guzman is only a bit behind Jose Reyes as the second shortstop. It really comes down to my general disdain for putting a closer in the All-Star game for any team that struggles to get a representative and Guzman's role as such a huge component of the Nationals' offense.
Any spot for Brandon Phillips? Poor Brandon Phillips, he's becoming the Travis Hafner of the current generation of players -- the player who's too good to stay home from the All-Star game, but may never make it because of his position. Uggla and Utley are locks, so there's just no room for an .826 OPS, 50 runs, 14 HR, 54 RBI, 17 SB player. While there's an argument to make an extra spot on the roster at second base instead of catcher (leaving Soto behind), the production from Soto is hard to overlook just because the Dodgers lack an obvious choice.
Most overrepresented: Washington Nationals – They’re not even close to having an All-Star. It’s either Guzman or Jon Rauch. Rauch has had a decent season but wouldn’t necessarily beat out any of the relievers for the roster (though the Gregg spot could go to any number of players, Guzman’s not actually the second best candidate at shortstop over Jose Reyes or Jimmy Rollins). The Phillies have the most players, but Utley’s a lock to play (not to start, he and Uggla are pretty close on that score), Burrell’s got an OPS greater than 1.000, and Lidge is the best pitcher in baseball thus far this season. So unless you want to nit pick Cole Hamels (good luck with that), there’s no doubt they’re worthy guys.
Most underrepresented: There’s a lot of teams that could claim they warrant one more player on the team. The New York Mets could claim three players are worthy on a stats-only basis. Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran are having fine seasons, but they don’t do enough to get inclusion in the face of the every-team-gets-a-representative rule. At one point, Ryan Church was the only worthy player on the team, so things have changed.
The jury hung on: Which Pirates outfielders? - Xavier Nady was the best on the numbers, but McLouth and Bay are basically identical. McLouth has driven in more runs, Bay has an OPS 20 points higher. I went with McLouth because he's a newcomer, another all-star game doesn't mean much to Bay until he gets subjected to retarded Hall of Fame voters in two decades who will ask how many All-Star games he played in.
Atlanta: Chipper Jones*, Brian McCann*
Chicago: Geovany Soto, Kerry Wood
Cincinnati: Edinson Volquez*, Adam Dunn
Colorado: Matt Holliday*, Taylor Buchholz
Florida: Hanley Ramirez*, Dan Uggla
Houston: Lance Berkman*
Los Angeles: Russell Martin
Milwaukee: Ben Sheets, Ryan Braun
New York: David Wright, Johan Santana, Billy Wagner
Philadelphia: Chase Utley*, Pat Burrell*, Cole Hamels, Brad Lidge
Pittsburgh: Xavier Nady, Nate McLouth
St. Louis: Albert Pujols, Ryan Ludwick
San Diego: Adrian Gonzalez
San Francisco: Tim Lincecum
Washington: Cristian Guzman
Catchers (3): Brian McCann*, Geovany Soto, Russell Martin
First Basemen (3): Lance Berkman*, Albert Pujols, Adrian Gonzalez
Second Basemen (2): Chase Utley*, Dan Uggla
Shortstops (2): Hanley Ramirez*, Cristian Guzman
Third Basemen (2): Chipper Jones*, David Wright
Outfielders (7): Xavier Nady*, Pat Burrell*, Matt Holliday*, Adam Dunn, Nate McLouth, Ryan Ludwick, Ryan Braun
Starting Pitchers (7): Edinson Volquez*, Cole Hamels, Brandon Webb, Tim Lincecum, Johan Santana, Ben Sheets, Dan Haren
Relief Pitchers (4): Brad Lidge, Kerry Wood, Billy Wagner, Taylor Buchholz
Toughest calls:
Ryan Braun or Carlos Lee? - Lee's leading the NL in RBIs, but he didn't make my list here. Originally, I'd had Braun added because the Brewers needed a representative, and I hadn't looked at pitching. Lee has the edge based on the superior OPS, but Braun has stolen a couple of bases more and has had a solid defensive season. The breaking point is that Lee's park factor is significantly more favorable than Braun's.
Who for the Nationals? Guzman and Jon Rauch both have arguments here. Rauch is almost as worthy as Billy Wagner in that closer role, but Guzman is only a bit behind Jose Reyes as the second shortstop. It really comes down to my general disdain for putting a closer in the All-Star game for any team that struggles to get a representative and Guzman's role as such a huge component of the Nationals' offense.
Any spot for Brandon Phillips? Poor Brandon Phillips, he's becoming the Travis Hafner of the current generation of players -- the player who's too good to stay home from the All-Star game, but may never make it because of his position. Uggla and Utley are locks, so there's just no room for an .826 OPS, 50 runs, 14 HR, 54 RBI, 17 SB player. While there's an argument to make an extra spot on the roster at second base instead of catcher (leaving Soto behind), the production from Soto is hard to overlook just because the Dodgers lack an obvious choice.
Most overrepresented: Washington Nationals – They’re not even close to having an All-Star. It’s either Guzman or Jon Rauch. Rauch has had a decent season but wouldn’t necessarily beat out any of the relievers for the roster (though the Gregg spot could go to any number of players, Guzman’s not actually the second best candidate at shortstop over Jose Reyes or Jimmy Rollins). The Phillies have the most players, but Utley’s a lock to play (not to start, he and Uggla are pretty close on that score), Burrell’s got an OPS greater than 1.000, and Lidge is the best pitcher in baseball thus far this season. So unless you want to nit pick Cole Hamels (good luck with that), there’s no doubt they’re worthy guys.
Most underrepresented: There’s a lot of teams that could claim they warrant one more player on the team. The New York Mets could claim three players are worthy on a stats-only basis. Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran are having fine seasons, but they don’t do enough to get inclusion in the face of the every-team-gets-a-representative rule. At one point, Ryan Church was the only worthy player on the team, so things have changed.
The jury hung on: Which Pirates outfielders? - Xavier Nady was the best on the numbers, but McLouth and Bay are basically identical. McLouth has driven in more runs, Bay has an OPS 20 points higher. I went with McLouth because he's a newcomer, another all-star game doesn't mean much to Bay until he gets subjected to retarded Hall of Fame voters in two decades who will ask how many All-Star games he played in.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
The Should-Be All-Star Game - AL Edition
Rather than kick off this blog with something about law, we might as well devolve it from the outset.
So, it's that time of year, the time that enables people to make specious arguments about who belongs in the Hall of Fame based on a selection process run by two groups of people who are usually hostile to research -- fans and major league managers.
Before the atrocious votes that land Jason Varitek on an all-star team come in...I'll give you the list of the 30 people that should make the roster given the other rules and the usual position allotment.
Baltimore (1): Brian Roberts
Boston (3): Kevin Youkilis, Manny Ramirez, J.D. Drew
Chicago (2): Carlos Quentin*, Jermaine Dye
Cleveland (4): Cliff Lee*, Grady Sizemore, Jhonny Peralta, C.C. Sabathia
Detroit (1): Carlos Guillen
Kansas City (2): David DeJesus, Joakim Soria
Los Angeles (2): Francisco Rodriguez, Joe Saunders
Minnesota (3): Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, Joe Nathan
New York (3): Jason Giambi*, Alex Rodriguez*, Mariano Rivera
Oakland (2): Justin Duchscherer, Rich Harden
Seattle (1): Brandon Morrow
Tampa Bay (3): Dioner Navarro, Evan Longoria, Scott Kazmir
Texas (4): Milton Bradley* (DH), Josh Hamilton*, Ian Kinsler*, Michael Young*
Toronto (1): Roy Halladay
Catchers (2): Joe Mauer*, Dioner Navarro
First Basemen (3): Jason Giambi*, Kevin Youkilis, Justin Morneau
Second Basemen (2): Ian Kinsler*, Brian Roberts
Shortstop (2): Michael Young*, Jhonny Peralta
Third Basemen (2): Alex Rodriguez*, Evan Longoria, Carlos Guillen
Outfield/DH (7): Josh Hamilton*, Milton Bradley (DH)*, Carlos Quentin*, Grady Sizemore*, J.D. Drew, David DeJesus, Jermaine Dye, Manny Ramirez
Starting Pitchers (7): Cliff Lee*, Justin Duchscherer, Roy Halladay, Rich Harden, Scott Kazmir, Joe Saunders, C.C. Sabathia
Relief pitchers (5): Mariano Rivera, Francisco Rodriguez, Brandon Morrow, Joakim Soria, Joe Nathan
Close calls:
Sabathia over Beckett - Like last year's Cy Young dispute, only this time, there's actually a dispute to be had. Sabathia had an awful April, which we can't write off entirely. But he's been the dominant starter at times this year, Beckett has been...good. That's it. Beckett doesn't go deep into games, and despite Sabathia being the most hittable pitcher on earth for one month, he's pitched 22 innings more than Beckett. He's also got a huge edge in strikeouts (22). Working in Beckett's favor is that the Indians don't warrant having this many All-Stars...they're a last place team...and Sabathia will get traded to the NL twelve seconds after making the team. Francona may choose Beckett for the honor, or he may just load up his team with other AL rosters' players in order to give his guys a rest. The real solution here is to take the pitcher who most deserves to be on the team (if he'd stayed healthy) over both these guys, but John Lackey's made a whopping nine starts.
#2 shortstop - Let's be frank, zero shortstops deserve to play in the All-Star Game in the American League. ZERO. But two will, just because that's how things work. Young is the clear winner. The second place finisher is a close contest offensively, but the tell-all number slightly favors Peralta.
Peralta: .253 avg, .303 OBP, 47 runs, 12 HR, 36 RBI, .747 OPS
Jeter: .279 avg. (+.026), .342 OBP (+.039), 48 runs (+1), 4 HR (-8), 35 RBI (-1), .736 OPS (-.011)
The first two categories scream "Jeter!". Then you look at the punchless slugging of Jeter and it becomes a lot more even. Moreover, while it's not entirely fair to punish a player for being on a good team, providing the kind of numbers Jeter gets is a heck of a lot easier when you have Bobby Abreu OPS .802 right behind you followed by Alex Rodriguez (for most of the season). Then...Matsui, Posada (about half the season), Jason Giambi, hell, even Wilson Betemit (also superior OPS to Jeter, so perhaps the Yankees should be considering a switch at shortstop?).
As much as this has been a down year for Abreu, his .802 OPS would make him the third best eligible hitter on the Indians squad. He's the fifth on the Yankees. That kind of production really inflates Jeter's opportunity to get good pitches to hit, since they'd rather take their chances with him. Peralta has the comfort of knowing that batting behind him has been the likes of Ryan Garko (and his satanic .666 OPS).
The difference in defense is pretty surprising, even to someone who regards Jeter as the most overrated player in baseball. Jeter just doesn't get to balls. Period. Range factor of 4.01, zone rating of .828. Compare that to Peralta -- Range factor of 4.72! and a zone rating of .833. The range factor owes in part to the Indians' sinkerballing pitchers Carmona and Westbrook, both of whom are on the DL, so it may not be just that (that said, there is still Aaron Laffey), but even with that zone, Peralta gets to more balls, and has a superior fielding percentage, to the questionable extent that should even be considered. Peralta's also been more involved in double plays (57 to Jeter's 38), but this again may be tainted by the sinker-oriented staff the Indians have -- I doubt the difference is that vast. Answer: it isn't. The Indians have turned 96 double plays, 57 involving Peralta (59%), the Yankees have turned 74 (38 of which involved Jeter (51.3%). So Peralta is probably a notch better at turning double plays.
This is all mooted by the first point I made...the people voting for this rarely care about baseball reality -- they vote for people they know, people who they see on TV, people who are on their favorite teams. This means Jeter has been elected to the All-Star game, though in fact, he's the third best candidate, and this year, that makes him (like Peralta) utterly unworthy of the All-Star nod.
#2 Catcher Rather than belabor this point, Navarro has played most of his team's games, Rod Barajas has been a fill-in who's not even eligible for the batting title. Navarro also plays for a team who's underrepresented by the roster I've cobbled together, which breaks the tie.
Relief pitchers other than Brandon Morrow - Soria and Nathan have ERAs below 1.40. That's hard to do. So they win out over Papelbon, who's been great and all...but doesn't have the ridiculous Bobby Thigpen-like season of K-Rod (34 saves) or the eye-popping ERA. Brandon Morrow has an 0.71 ERA, has been dominant and is the ONLY Mariner worthy of one second's worth of consideration for the All-Star Game. Alas, Japanese voters will probably land Ichiro another start.
Most overrepresented: easily the Cleveland Indians. While the Rangers have the same number and are also not playing well, every one of their players is a lock in a just and fair baseball universe, while I could argue that the only Indians player who should make the team is Cliff Lee (who should, undoubtedly, start the All-Star Game, but will inevitably be passed over for someone like Josh Beckett). Sizemore has a pretty strong argument with OPS, HR, SB, and production on a lousy offensive team, but he's no lock in a strong outfield year.
Most underrepresented: The Red Sox have a claim that Pedroia should make the team (he shouldn't, since he plays second base and shortstop), Julio Lugo's not far off the lousy second string shortstops, Mike Lowell's not far behind Evan Longoria, Josh Beckett isn't an awful choice to make the team, and Papelbon has a resume that's better than K-Rod's in all but the number of saves.
The Jury's Hung on: Leaving off John Lackey - John Lackey has been one of the best pitchers in the league since he came off the DL, but nine starts is just not enough. I'm stretching it to include both Rich Harden and Scott Kazmir, so it makes it hard to draw a line.
So, it's that time of year, the time that enables people to make specious arguments about who belongs in the Hall of Fame based on a selection process run by two groups of people who are usually hostile to research -- fans and major league managers.
Before the atrocious votes that land Jason Varitek on an all-star team come in...I'll give you the list of the 30 people that should make the roster given the other rules and the usual position allotment.
Baltimore (1): Brian Roberts
Boston (3): Kevin Youkilis, Manny Ramirez, J.D. Drew
Chicago (2): Carlos Quentin*, Jermaine Dye
Cleveland (4): Cliff Lee*, Grady Sizemore, Jhonny Peralta, C.C. Sabathia
Detroit (1): Carlos Guillen
Kansas City (2): David DeJesus, Joakim Soria
Los Angeles (2): Francisco Rodriguez, Joe Saunders
Minnesota (3): Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, Joe Nathan
New York (3): Jason Giambi*, Alex Rodriguez*, Mariano Rivera
Oakland (2): Justin Duchscherer, Rich Harden
Seattle (1): Brandon Morrow
Tampa Bay (3): Dioner Navarro, Evan Longoria, Scott Kazmir
Texas (4): Milton Bradley* (DH), Josh Hamilton*, Ian Kinsler*, Michael Young*
Toronto (1): Roy Halladay
Catchers (2): Joe Mauer*, Dioner Navarro
First Basemen (3): Jason Giambi*, Kevin Youkilis, Justin Morneau
Second Basemen (2): Ian Kinsler*, Brian Roberts
Shortstop (2): Michael Young*, Jhonny Peralta
Third Basemen (2): Alex Rodriguez*, Evan Longoria, Carlos Guillen
Outfield/DH (7): Josh Hamilton*, Milton Bradley (DH)*, Carlos Quentin*, Grady Sizemore*, J.D. Drew, David DeJesus, Jermaine Dye, Manny Ramirez
Starting Pitchers (7): Cliff Lee*, Justin Duchscherer, Roy Halladay, Rich Harden, Scott Kazmir, Joe Saunders, C.C. Sabathia
Relief pitchers (5): Mariano Rivera, Francisco Rodriguez, Brandon Morrow, Joakim Soria, Joe Nathan
Close calls:
Sabathia over Beckett - Like last year's Cy Young dispute, only this time, there's actually a dispute to be had. Sabathia had an awful April, which we can't write off entirely. But he's been the dominant starter at times this year, Beckett has been...good. That's it. Beckett doesn't go deep into games, and despite Sabathia being the most hittable pitcher on earth for one month, he's pitched 22 innings more than Beckett. He's also got a huge edge in strikeouts (22). Working in Beckett's favor is that the Indians don't warrant having this many All-Stars...they're a last place team...and Sabathia will get traded to the NL twelve seconds after making the team. Francona may choose Beckett for the honor, or he may just load up his team with other AL rosters' players in order to give his guys a rest. The real solution here is to take the pitcher who most deserves to be on the team (if he'd stayed healthy) over both these guys, but John Lackey's made a whopping nine starts.
#2 shortstop - Let's be frank, zero shortstops deserve to play in the All-Star Game in the American League. ZERO. But two will, just because that's how things work. Young is the clear winner. The second place finisher is a close contest offensively, but the tell-all number slightly favors Peralta.
Peralta: .253 avg, .303 OBP, 47 runs, 12 HR, 36 RBI, .747 OPS
Jeter: .279 avg. (+.026), .342 OBP (+.039), 48 runs (+1), 4 HR (-8), 35 RBI (-1), .736 OPS (-.011)
The first two categories scream "Jeter!". Then you look at the punchless slugging of Jeter and it becomes a lot more even. Moreover, while it's not entirely fair to punish a player for being on a good team, providing the kind of numbers Jeter gets is a heck of a lot easier when you have Bobby Abreu OPS .802 right behind you followed by Alex Rodriguez (for most of the season). Then...Matsui, Posada (about half the season), Jason Giambi, hell, even Wilson Betemit (also superior OPS to Jeter, so perhaps the Yankees should be considering a switch at shortstop?).
As much as this has been a down year for Abreu, his .802 OPS would make him the third best eligible hitter on the Indians squad. He's the fifth on the Yankees. That kind of production really inflates Jeter's opportunity to get good pitches to hit, since they'd rather take their chances with him. Peralta has the comfort of knowing that batting behind him has been the likes of Ryan Garko (and his satanic .666 OPS).
The difference in defense is pretty surprising, even to someone who regards Jeter as the most overrated player in baseball. Jeter just doesn't get to balls. Period. Range factor of 4.01, zone rating of .828. Compare that to Peralta -- Range factor of 4.72! and a zone rating of .833. The range factor owes in part to the Indians' sinkerballing pitchers Carmona and Westbrook, both of whom are on the DL, so it may not be just that (that said, there is still Aaron Laffey), but even with that zone, Peralta gets to more balls, and has a superior fielding percentage, to the questionable extent that should even be considered. Peralta's also been more involved in double plays (57 to Jeter's 38), but this again may be tainted by the sinker-oriented staff the Indians have -- I doubt the difference is that vast. Answer: it isn't. The Indians have turned 96 double plays, 57 involving Peralta (59%), the Yankees have turned 74 (38 of which involved Jeter (51.3%). So Peralta is probably a notch better at turning double plays.
This is all mooted by the first point I made...the people voting for this rarely care about baseball reality -- they vote for people they know, people who they see on TV, people who are on their favorite teams. This means Jeter has been elected to the All-Star game, though in fact, he's the third best candidate, and this year, that makes him (like Peralta) utterly unworthy of the All-Star nod.
#2 Catcher Rather than belabor this point, Navarro has played most of his team's games, Rod Barajas has been a fill-in who's not even eligible for the batting title. Navarro also plays for a team who's underrepresented by the roster I've cobbled together, which breaks the tie.
Relief pitchers other than Brandon Morrow - Soria and Nathan have ERAs below 1.40. That's hard to do. So they win out over Papelbon, who's been great and all...but doesn't have the ridiculous Bobby Thigpen-like season of K-Rod (34 saves) or the eye-popping ERA. Brandon Morrow has an 0.71 ERA, has been dominant and is the ONLY Mariner worthy of one second's worth of consideration for the All-Star Game. Alas, Japanese voters will probably land Ichiro another start.
Most overrepresented: easily the Cleveland Indians. While the Rangers have the same number and are also not playing well, every one of their players is a lock in a just and fair baseball universe, while I could argue that the only Indians player who should make the team is Cliff Lee (who should, undoubtedly, start the All-Star Game, but will inevitably be passed over for someone like Josh Beckett). Sizemore has a pretty strong argument with OPS, HR, SB, and production on a lousy offensive team, but he's no lock in a strong outfield year.
Most underrepresented: The Red Sox have a claim that Pedroia should make the team (he shouldn't, since he plays second base and shortstop), Julio Lugo's not far off the lousy second string shortstops, Mike Lowell's not far behind Evan Longoria, Josh Beckett isn't an awful choice to make the team, and Papelbon has a resume that's better than K-Rod's in all but the number of saves.
The Jury's Hung on: Leaving off John Lackey - John Lackey has been one of the best pitchers in the league since he came off the DL, but nine starts is just not enough. I'm stretching it to include both Rich Harden and Scott Kazmir, so it makes it hard to draw a line.
Hung Like A Jury
Welcome to Hung Like A Jury. This will pick up where blogaboutfederalism left off...which is to say it's a blog that no one but me will read, I'll tire of it quickly, and we'll likely learn little about the law and a lot about how much time I devote to sports analysis.
Also, if you're the asshole who bought www.hunglikeajury.com and then didn't post anything except some backdated entries that say nothing, cease and desist. I have absolutely no legal case against you...but there's got to be a state without a Rule 11.
Also, if you're the asshole who bought www.hunglikeajury.com and then didn't post anything except some backdated entries that say nothing, cease and desist. I have absolutely no legal case against you...but there's got to be a state without a Rule 11.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)