Hey, Greg Maddux will be 38 years old next month.
As such, he's going to get pounded around from time to time and best that it happened today, during spring training, when it doesn't count, a 6-1 loss to the Rangers at the lovely new complex at Surprise.
Actually, you can blame this one partly on Michael Barrett. The Rangers ran like crazy on him, stealing four bases, though Maddux took part of the blame for that, and that led to the three-run rally in the third that pretty much put the game away.
The Cubs couldn't do anything with the Rangers' pitching, and oddly, it was another lefty who's given the Cubs fits over the years with the Mets and Brewers, Glendon Rusch, who shut them down for four innings. The club managed only six hits, with two from Aramis Ramirez and two from Todd Hollandsworth.
After Maddux was pulled, the rest of the staff, which included one guy who'll make the team (Joe Borowski) and two who won't (Mike Wuertz and Bryan Corey), shut down the Rangers for the rest of the day.
I got another e-mail from a reader, Mike Carpenter, on the issue of HR 3920, the "activist judicial bill", and I share it with you because I share Mike's views:
I'm an avid reader of your Cub blog, and am currently a law student at the University of Iowa. I would bet Mark Prior's arm that a unanimous Supreme Court would strike down HR 3920 as unconstitutional. Congress has virtually unlimited power to define the SC's appellate jurisdiction. However, HR 3920 does not concern the SC's appellate jurisdiction; it concerns the Court's judgments on the constitutionality of Acts of Congress. The current Court has repeatedly struck down specific attempts by Congress to reverse Court holdings finding Congressional Acts unconstitutional. See City of Boerne v. Flores. They will certainly not stand for this illegitimate attempt of Congress to grant itself the power denied by Marbury v. Madison.
Also, I think you are right about "judicial activism". "Activism" is really about how faithful a judge is to precedent. There are many very liberal judges who, due to their respect for precedent, cannot be described as "activist". There are also many "activist" conservative judges, who ignorethe law when it would frustrate their political agenda. Activism cuts both ways.
Indeed it does, and I think this bet of Mark Prior's arm is a no-brainer.
Let's just hope Mark's leg is OK!
I will be in Arizona tomorrow, though too late to attend the game at Mesa.
As such, he's going to get pounded around from time to time and best that it happened today, during spring training, when it doesn't count, a 6-1 loss to the Rangers at the lovely new complex at Surprise.
Actually, you can blame this one partly on Michael Barrett. The Rangers ran like crazy on him, stealing four bases, though Maddux took part of the blame for that, and that led to the three-run rally in the third that pretty much put the game away.
The Cubs couldn't do anything with the Rangers' pitching, and oddly, it was another lefty who's given the Cubs fits over the years with the Mets and Brewers, Glendon Rusch, who shut them down for four innings. The club managed only six hits, with two from Aramis Ramirez and two from Todd Hollandsworth.
After Maddux was pulled, the rest of the staff, which included one guy who'll make the team (Joe Borowski) and two who won't (Mike Wuertz and Bryan Corey), shut down the Rangers for the rest of the day.
I got another e-mail from a reader, Mike Carpenter, on the issue of HR 3920, the "activist judicial bill", and I share it with you because I share Mike's views:
I'm an avid reader of your Cub blog, and am currently a law student at the University of Iowa. I would bet Mark Prior's arm that a unanimous Supreme Court would strike down HR 3920 as unconstitutional. Congress has virtually unlimited power to define the SC's appellate jurisdiction. However, HR 3920 does not concern the SC's appellate jurisdiction; it concerns the Court's judgments on the constitutionality of Acts of Congress. The current Court has repeatedly struck down specific attempts by Congress to reverse Court holdings finding Congressional Acts unconstitutional. See City of Boerne v. Flores. They will certainly not stand for this illegitimate attempt of Congress to grant itself the power denied by Marbury v. Madison.
Also, I think you are right about "judicial activism". "Activism" is really about how faithful a judge is to precedent. There are many very liberal judges who, due to their respect for precedent, cannot be described as "activist". There are also many "activist" conservative judges, who ignorethe law when it would frustrate their political agenda. Activism cuts both ways.
Indeed it does, and I think this bet of Mark Prior's arm is a no-brainer.
Let's just hope Mark's leg is OK!
I will be in Arizona tomorrow, though too late to attend the game at Mesa.