I'm not really that impressed with her... she throws up fifteen 3 pointers and makes ten and everyone goes crazy.  Her defense sucks and she turns over the ball a lot.  What she did do was bring attention to the league. Will she still be the hype she is in 3 years? 

Stay strong. Then why are we pointing out Putin didn’t attack under the previous admin if we had no intentions of doing anything to stop him. It’s called bluffing. It’s like anti war liberals voting for Reagan  because they like his slogan peace through strength. “Well I like the peace part but won’t support him ever exercising the strength part.”   So Sweden and Finland had to be pressured, even though it’s a no brainier?!? Interesting. If the latter they would have joined long ago.  Amazing how Finland was able to join no problem without Russia invading.    Keep dancing while adding nothing.

https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/583/ First, all federal offices must be “established by Law,” and there is no statute authorizing such an office in the DOJ. We conduct what we think is the first thorough examination of the statutes structuring the DOJ to show that the statutory provisions relied upon by the DOJ and lower courts for the appointment of Special Counsels over the past two decades do not – and even obviously do not – authorize the creation and appointment of Special Counsels at the level of United States Attorneys. They authorize the creation and appointment of Special Counsels to “assist” United States Attorneys, and they allow existing Senate-confirmed United States Attorneys to serve also as Special Counsels, but they do not remotely authorize the creation of the kind of Special Counsels represented by Robert Mueller who replace rather than assist United States Attorneys. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), does not hold to the contrary, because no question was raised in that case about the validity of the independent counsel’s appointment. Second, even if one chooses to overlook the absence of statutory authority for the position, there is no statute specifically authorizing the Attorney General, rather than the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint such a Special Counsel. Under the Appointments Clause, inferior officers can be appointed by department heads only if Congress so directs by statute – and so directs specifically enough to overcome a clear-statement presumption in favor of presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation. No such statute exists for the Special Counsel. Third, the Special Counsel is, in all events, a superior rather than inferior officer and thus cannot be appointed by any means other than presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation regardless of what any statutes purport to say. This is obviously true as a matter of original meaning, and it is even true as a matter of case law once one understands that neither Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), nor Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651 (1997), can plausibly be read to say that any person who is in any fashion subordinate to another executive official is an “inferior” officer. Such a reading leads to the ludicrous result that there is only one non-inferior officer in every federal department, which is a good reason not to read them that way.

If only they followed the bolded part of the rule, I’m fine with the rest.

Ray Epps.