mzmeryze

http://news.stlouisrams.com/article/39752

Holt Named NFC Offensive Player of the Month
Thursday, October 30, 2003

WR Torry Holt will be named NFC Offensive Player of the Month for
October, the NFL will announce Thursday.

In October, Holt caught 22 passes for 402 yards, and five touchdowns,
helping the Rams to post their first undefeated month (3-0) since
December 2001, when the Rams went 5-0. Holt caught 11 passes for 161
yards and two touchdowns in a 36-0 win over Atlanta on Oct. 13. He
followed that performance with another two-touchdown game, catching
four passes for 67 yards in a 34-24 win over Green Bay. Last week at
Pittsburgh, Holt caught seven passes for 174 yards and one touchdown
in a 33-21 win over the Steelers.

In 2003, Holt leads the NFL with 52 receptions, is second in the NFC
and fourth in the NFL with 778 receiving yards, and is tied for second
in the NFC and tied for third in the NFL with a career-high eight
touchdowns.

It is Holt’s first Player of the Month Award. He is the second Ram to
earn Player of the Month honors in 2003, as K Jeff Wilkins earned NFC
Special Teams Player of the Month honors for September. Holt is the
first Ram to earn NFC Offensive Player of the Month honors since RB
Marshall Faulk earned the honor for December, 2001.

steve jaros

wow... congrats Torry!

--
"if federal judges have the final word over its meaning,
the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands
of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form
they please".

- Thomas Jefferson

jayhawker

Not that anyone should ever disagree with Thomas Jefferson, but exactly who
should decide the meaning of the constitution if two parties disagree?

Jayhawker

steve jaros

Jefferson believed that the three branches of government were equal in the
sense that each had the right to rule on the constitutionality of issues:

"Each department (i.e., legislative, judicial, executive) is truly
independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what
is the meaning of the constitution in the cases submitted to its action".

Both quotes are from Jefferson's "writings", specifically a letter to Judge
Roane in 1819.

Ultimately, Jefferson was someone who valued the legislature above the other
two branches of government (in a 'first among equals' sense, as the branch
most organically linked to the people), and as he grew older to an extent
rued what he perceived as usurpations of power by the executive and the
judiciary (in the form of the Marshall Court's assertions of the primacy of
judicial review).

Which is somewhat ironic, since many trace the greatest initial expansion of
executive power to Jefferson's own decision as President to buy the
Louisiana territory from France (clearly unauthorized by congress or the
constitution when he did it), and also because the legislature (congress)
*is* the most powerful branch of government. By itself, Congress can remove
the President from office, or the entire Supreme Court from office, can
override executive vetoes and (with state legislatures) amend the
constitution, etc.


--
"if federal judges have the final word over its meaning,
the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands
of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form
they please".

- Thomas Jefferson

jayhawker

I understand Jefferson's position, but I disagree. I have a lot more faith
in the Supreme Court (even if I disagree with some of their decisions, or
non-decisions) than the legislative branch.

Appointed for life, they seem to make more sound decisions, and are less
likely to cave to the emotional state of the country.

All they are doing is interpreting the constitution. If the "people" or the
executive branch disagree, they can amend the constitution to get the
decision they want.

Surely you do not support having the same folks who renamed french fries and
brought us the Patriot Act to start interpreting the constitution as well!
They do enough damage without getting that power as well.

Jayhawker

And yes, I do just feel like arguing today.

steve jaros

faith


True, but surely it is apparent that SCOTUS justices are as 'political' as
everyone else is. They view the constitution through different ideological
lenses, just as presidents and congressmen do .That's why the confirmation
fights are so bloody. Presidents pick justices for their political views,
etc. (though some are better than others at it - i bet Clinton is happier
with how justices ginsburg and breyer have ruled than bush sr. is about
justice souter), and the senate partisans support or oppose them on those
grounds, etc. It's all political.


the

That's true. But anyone - a judge or a president - can misinterpret the
constitution. Changing it is very difficult of course. And then the court
may still misinterpret the change!

Honestly, i'm not sure how i feel about the supremacy of judicial review.
The proponents probably have the better argument, but...

--
"if federal judges have the final word over its meaning,
the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands
of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form
they please".

- Thomas Jefferson

the gunslinger

On [GMT+0100=CET],
Steve Jaros <steeeeh@covv.com> thought hard and spewed:

And all this has to do with Torry Holt, wow