Latest news with #PotterStewart
USA Today
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- USA Today
NFL QB rankings: Where every team's 2025 starter lands based on aura
NFL quarterbacks have been ranked by stats, accomplishments, fantasy scores and more, but it's about time we talk about the thing that truly matters – aura. It's something that can't be measured by numbers, but as the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said about obscenity, "I know it when I see it." While some hit the film room, others spend their time on the aura farm – crafting some of the most ridiculous personas you've ever seen. There's no MVP award or Super Bowl ring for this honor, but maybe there should be. Without further ado, here are the official aura rankings for the 2025 NFL season's starting quarterbacks. DangeRuss. Mr. Unlimited. Plane workouts. Wannabe NYC influencer. Please, make it stop. Mr. Irrelevant is an appropriate nickname for Purdy off-the-field. Boring is better than cringy though and that allows the NFL-equivalent of the "9 to 5" influencer to avoid the last spot. He has a cool name, but it also signifies a call of distress. Patriots fans hope that won't be used unironically this year, but there is no real swagger or aura about Maye. The hairstyle is improved, but the skill level is a mystery. McCarthy gets an incomplete and lands near the back of the ranking until proven otherwise. A-Rich could have maximum aura. Instead he was too tired to show up for his team in a big moment and we're too tired to boost his ranking. A real shame for someone with such promise. Left handed QBs just look unnatural. The lack of personality on display makes it even worse. He comes across as someone that is trying too hard. The play style feels clunky and every throw looks like a fadeaway jumper. Love has to expand his bag in 2025. Against all odds, the fairly bland Darnold kept his career alive after a breakout 2024. It'll require a lot more effort to get rid of this guy – probably more ghosts, if we had to guess. Flacco has been around long enough to be cool again. In the league since 2008, he has the "get off my lawn" energy, but in a good way. He's short and far from flashy, but Young was aura farming to the max in the second half of 2024. Big things could be on the way. The soon-to-be 26-year-old rookie could've thrown the towel and went into corporate America after a career in college. His quest to be an outlier is applauded here. Concussions have made him the NFL version of the old dog at the shelter. You just can't help but feel bad about what has happened. The hair is doing the heavy lifting, but he could be a lot more exciting. In his defense, Jacksonville and the Jaguars aren't exactly oozing with aura though. Nix dragged the Broncos out of irrelevancy as a rookie and has a cool name. There's some untapped aura for him to uncover as an encore this season. Stafford is the more talented version of Flacco here. Accomplished, talented and still playing a kid's game for a living at 37. Say less. Quarterback or video game streamer? Murray can make some magic on the field, but he struggles to shake the label of someone that would rather be live on Twitch playing Call of Duty. The uncontrollable tears aren't helping Williams in what would've otherwise been a strong case of above average aura in the NFL. He beats to his own drum, but life isn't fair and the QB needs to realize that. One of the game's greatest QBs, Rodgers is now off the deep end. Those clashing realities make the middle a perfect spot. No aura on an individual level, but Goff has the city wrapped around his finger. Listen closely and you'll hear people chanting his name for no reason in a supermarket parking lot. A great QB with endless gifts from above helps his rating. The flopping is unbecoming and the complaining is even worse. Be better. If it looks like a great QB and moves like a great QB, then it must be a great QB. Fields is evidence that results may vary, but there's no denying his aura. He made football in the nation's capital cool again, but his mom can't be controlling his dating life forever and the rating takes a hit because of it. At some point, you have to sink or swim on your own. Being the starting quarterback for America's Team gives Prescott a ton of aura by default. A silent assassin that couldn't possibly be more nonchalant. Ward is all action, no talk. Herbert has mastered the look, even though the short hair does him no justice. He's a little too reserved for our liking, limiting his ceiling here. Everything says his career should be over, but it isn't. King of one-liners, the haters are still waiting for him to write back. A bit of a loose cannon, Mayfield has embraced his inner Florida man with his fiery personality and unlimited confidence. He's a QB with aura that has some serious gravitational pull. The best quarterback in the sport is one you don't want to play against. A combination of dad mode, Kermit voice and a family that creates unwanted headlines holds him back. Stroud is dripping with swagger that borders on arrogance and has almost single-handedly made the Texans a cool team. There's no denying his aura, or his talent. He has the smile and the charisma, but being a "tush push" merchant and speaking in clichés can only get you so far. A real contender for the top spot, Jackson is hurt by his playoff struggles. You can't be No. 1 if you struggle when it matters most. Swagger. Fashion. Confidence. Talent. In the aura department, Burrow whas hat everyone wants. Unless you want wins, then we'll have to transfer you.
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump vs. the courts: A constitutional crisis approaches
The Trump presidency is mired in litigation, facing some 250 lawsuits over its hailstorm of executive orders, substantially more orders than had been filed at this point during his first term. The unprecedented flood of legal action has for the moment scotched some of Trump's signature priorities, but courts have cleared others to move forward while litigation continues. Judges have temporarily frozen Trump's efforts to punish elite law firms and Harvard University, as well as to deport immigrants without due process. Courts have allowed Trump to fire independent regulators while litigation continues. The Court of International Trade blocked the 10 percent tariffs Trump imposed on all foreign products, as well as higher levies applied to imports from several dozen nations, but an appellate court stayed the ruling for the time being. Trump has been notoriously cavalier when it comes to compliance with court orders seeking to reverse his administration's actions. We hear a lot about the potential for a constitutional crisis these days, but no one can tell us exactly what that is. Perhaps the definition channels Justice Potter Stewart's famous test for hard-core pornography: 'I know it when I see it.' Presidents have sometimes been at odds with the Supreme Court. In 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt, irked that the court was striking down his New Deal legislation in a series of five-to-four decisions, proposed a court-packing bill to 'save the Constitution from the court and the court from itself.' Harry Truman didn't like it when the court invalidated his seizure of the steel mills, and Barack Obama was critical of the Citizen's United decision opening the flood gates to big money in politics. But, generally, presidents have sucked it in and followed Supreme Court decisions and precedents. Trump has been even more outspoken. He is particularly upset with one of his appointees, Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And he has been critical of the decisions of two others, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Trump claims without basis that a 'judicial coup' is threatening democracy by reining in his executive authority, and his supporters have called for the impeachment of judges who have rendered decisions with which he disagrees. Most ominous, he has played it close to the chalk, maneuvering to end run or otherwise flout court orders. 'The Supreme Court … is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do,' Trump lamented on Truth Social, after the high court's sternly worded order temporarily blocking deportations of alleged gang members in northern Texas. The next day, Trump circulated an ominous post from conservative legal apparatchik Mike Davis, which blasted, 'The Supreme Court is heading down a perilous path.' The same observation may be said of Trump. Most notoriously, his administration illegally rendered Kilmar Abrego Garcia to rot in a prison in El Salvador, admitting it could pick up the telephone and bring him back. The Supreme Court ordered the administration to 'facilitate' his return, but Trump has left the Oval Office phone on its cradle. A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled in May that the administration 'unquestionably' violated a court order by deporting migrants to South Sudan without giving them adequate notice and opportunity to object. The administration ignored a court order to turn around two planeloads of alleged Venezuelan gang members because on the grounds that the flights were over international waters and therefore the ruling didn't apply. And a judge found that the White House had failed to comply with a temporary order to unblock federal funding to states that had been subjected to a sweeping freeze. Alexander Hamilton described the judiciary as 'beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.' He reasoned that the court only has the power of judgment. Its authority relies not on coercive ability, but rather on the trust of both the other branches of government and the public in its integrity as an impartial arbiter of the law. Once in power, Trump conspicuously moved a portrait of Andrew Jackson into the Oval Office. It was Jackson who is thought to have said, 'John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.' Chief Justice Marshall's decision was really a confrontation with Georgia, not with the president, and historians doubt that Jackson ever uttered those famous words, but they make plain that if a president decides to defy court rulings, there isn't anything the court can do. After all, he commands the armed forces. Whether Jackson said it or not, Chief Justice John Roberts gets the point. His court has steadily thrown crumbs to both sides, expanding presidential power — but not without limits. So far, he has succeeded in walking the tightrope between sanctioning an unprecedented expansion of executive power and confronting Trump when he gets out of line. The justices have allowed the administration for now to bar transgender troops from the military, fire independent agency leaders without cause, halt education grants and remove protections for as many as 350,000 Venezuelans migrants admitted under a Biden-era program. Trump has said that he has great respect for the Supreme Court and that his administration will abide by its decisions. But do you trust him when his social media posts have bristled with anger at the courts? The percolating tension poses a serious test for Roberts's leadership and the Supreme Court's legitimacy at a time when the court and the country are ideologically divided, and Americans' trust in the court is rapidly evaporating. Roberts appears to have been in the majority in all but one of the approximately 10 substantive actions the court has taken so far. There are parallels between Roberts's approach and the legacy of John Marshall, who was also careful not to engage in unwinnable battles. 'I am not fond of butting against a wall in sport,' Marshall wrote to his colleague Justice Joseph Story in 1823. Roberts recently invoked Marshall's pivotal legacy. 'He is … the most important figure in American political history' who was not a president, Roberts said.' A lot more important than about half the presidents,' he added. What flows from a constitutional crisis? Surely, the end of American government as we have known it. If Trump defies a Supreme Court order, the only remedy would appear to be impeachment, an unlikely prospect given the political composition of Congress. Face it, a constitutional crisis could sink the ship of state. As for the delicate balance, FDR could not have put it better. 'The American form of Government,' he said in his 1937 fireside chat, is 'a three horse team provided by the Constitution to the American people so that their field might be plowed. Two of the horses are pulling in unison today; the third is not … It is the American people themselves who are in the driver's seat. It is the American people themselves who want the furrow plowed.' James D. Zirin, author and legal analyst, is a former federal prosecutor in New York's Southern District. He is also the host of the public television talk show and podcast Conversations with Jim Zirin. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
05-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump vs. the courts: A constitutional crisis approaches
The Trump presidency is mired in litigation, facing some 250 lawsuits over its hailstorm of executive orders, substantially more orders than had been filed at this point during his first term. The unprecedented flood of legal action has for the moment scotched some of Trump's signature priorities, but courts have cleared others to move forward while litigation continues. Judges have temporarily frozen Trump's efforts to punish elite law firms and Harvard University, as well as to deport immigrants without due process. Courts have allowed Trump to fire independent regulators while litigation continues. The Court of International Trade blocked the 10 percent tariffs Trump imposed on all foreign products, as well as higher levies applied to imports from several dozen nations, but an appellate court stayed the ruling for the time being. Trump has been notoriously cavalier when it comes to compliance with court orders seeking to reverse his administration's actions. We hear a lot about the potential for a constitutional crisis these days, but no one can tell us exactly what that is. Perhaps the definition channels Justice Potter Stewart's famous test for hard-core pornography: 'I know it when I see it.' Presidents have sometimes been at odds with the Supreme Court. In 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt, irked that the court was striking down his New Deal legislation in a series of five-to-four decisions, proposed a court-packing bill to 'save the Constitution from the court and the court from itself.' Harry Truman didn't like it when the court invalidated his seizure of the steel mills, and Barack Obama was critical of the Citizen's United decision opening the flood gates to big money in politics. But, generally, presidents have sucked it in and followed Supreme Court decisions and precedents. Trump has been even more outspoken. He is particularly upset with one of his appointees, Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And he has been critical of the decisions of two others, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Trump claims without basis that a 'judicial coup' is threatening democracy by reining in his executive authority, and his supporters have called for the impeachment of judges who have rendered decisions with which he disagrees. Most ominous, he has played it close to the chalk, maneuvering to end run or otherwise flout court orders. 'The Supreme Court … is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do,' Trump lamented on Truth Social, after the high court's sternly worded order temporarily blocking deportations of alleged gang members in northern Texas. The next day, Trump circulated an ominous post from conservative legal apparatchik Mike Davis, which blasted, 'The Supreme Court is heading down a perilous path.' The same observation may be said of Trump. Most notoriously, his administration illegally rendered Kilmar Abrego Garcia to rot in a prison in El Salvador, admitting it could pick up the telephone and bring him back. The Supreme Court ordered the administration to 'facilitate' his return, but Trump has left the Oval Office phone on its cradle. A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled in May that the administration 'unquestionably' violated a court order by deporting migrants to South Sudan without giving them adequate notice and opportunity to object. The administration ignored a court order to turn around two planeloads of alleged Venezuelan gang members because on the grounds that the flights were over international waters and therefore the ruling didn't apply. And a judge found that the White House had failed to comply with a temporary order to unblock federal funding to states that had been subjected to a sweeping freeze. Alexander Hamilton described the judiciary as 'beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.' He reasoned that the court only has the power of judgment. Its authority relies not on coercive ability, but rather on the trust of both the other branches of government and the public in its integrity as an impartial arbiter of the law. Once in power, Trump conspicuously moved a portrait of Andrew Jackson into the Oval Office. It was Jackson who is thought to have said, 'John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.' Chief Justice Marshall's decision was really a confrontation with Georgia, not with the president, and historians doubt that Jackson ever uttered those famous words, but they make plain that if a president decides to defy court rulings, there isn't anything the court can do. After all, he commands the armed forces. Whether Jackson said it or not, Chief Justice John Roberts gets the point. His court has steadily thrown crumbs to both sides, expanding presidential power — but not without limits. So far, he has succeeded in walking the tightrope between sanctioning an unprecedented expansion of executive power and confronting Trump when he gets out of line. The justices have allowed the administration for now to bar transgender troops from the military, fire independent agency leaders without cause, halt education grants and remove protections for as many as 350,000 Venezuelans migrants admitted under a Biden-era program. Trump has said that he has great respect for the Supreme Court and that his administration will abide by its decisions. But do you trust him when his social media posts have bristled with anger at the courts? The percolating tension poses a serious test for Roberts's leadership and the Supreme Court's legitimacy at a time when the court and the country are ideologically divided, and Americans' trust in the court is rapidly evaporating. Roberts appears to have been in the majority in all but one of the approximately 10 substantive actions the court has taken so far. There are parallels between Roberts's approach and the legacy of John Marshall, who was also careful not to engage in unwinnable battles. 'I am not fond of butting against a wall in sport,' Marshall wrote to his colleague Justice Joseph Story in 1823. Roberts recently invoked Marshall's pivotal legacy. 'He is … the most important figure in American political history' who was not a president, Roberts said.' A lot more important than about half the presidents,' he added. What flows from a constitutional crisis? Surely, the end of American government as we have known it. If Trump defies a Supreme Court order, the only remedy would appear to be impeachment, an unlikely prospect given the political composition of Congress. Face it, a constitutional crisis could sink the ship of state. As for the delicate balance, FDR could not have put it better. 'The American form of Government,' he said in his 1937 fireside chat, is 'a three horse team provided by the Constitution to the American people so that their field might be plowed. Two of the horses are pulling in unison today; the third is not … It is the American people themselves who are in the driver's seat. It is the American people themselves who want the furrow plowed.'
