Brady appeal decision coming next week?

Oswlek said:

This is the first comment I've ever really wanted to click disagree on. Is there a place to discuss this on this board?

Click to expand...

Probably the politics section but, let me be clear, this isn't a gay bashing comment. The point was courts, even the highest one, disregard the letter of the law for any number of reasons (politics, policy, garden variety corruption). The gay marriage ruling is as good an example as you can find. The right to gay marriage, quite clearly, is not spelled out in the constitution; no society in history (even the ones that openly tolerated homosexuality) ever recognized gay marriage; there is no precedent or any reasonable interpretation of the constitution for such a thing. The court did it anyway.

Again, nothing against gays and, frankly, laws recognizing civil unions would have given gays just about everything they wanted politically. My point is that the ruling was dumb and not based on the constitution or legal precedent.

YOUGOTMOSSED said:

Probably the politics section but, let me be clear, this isn't a gay bashing comment. The point was courts, even the highest one, disregard the letter of the law for any number of reasons (politics, policy, garden variety corruption). The gay marriage ruling is as good an example as you can find. The right to gay marriage, quite clearly, is not spelled out in the constitution; no society in history (even the ones that openly tolerated homosexuality) ever recognized gay marriage; there is no precedent or any reasonable interpretation of the constitution for such a thing. The court did it anyway.

Again, nothing against gays and, frankly, laws recognizing civil unions would have given gays just about everything they wanted politically. My point is that the ruling was dumb and not based on the constitution or legal precedent.

Click to expand...

I'm going to find the politics forum and rebut this there.

Munson is a brain-dead idiot, but....

it is generally true that the courts do not want to interfere with labor disputes unless it is clearly demonstrated that management is screwing over labor and that they are not following the conditions of a valid labor agreement. The courts are good at basically make sure that worker's rights are not trampled. They rarely have an interest in determining the fairness of the ruling in a labor dispute. What gets it into court is showing that a process that was used defied agreed-upon procedures.

Of course, judges are people and some of them like notoriety, so Kessler likely has a federal district or two in mind where a judge would be eager to take on such a high-profile case.

XLIX said:

That is one of my fears. I admit I don't understand all the legal technicalities involved but one of my concerns is that any appeal to federal court can only look at the process within the framework of the CBA, and not the actual question of guilt.

Click to expand...

Yes and No, what the courts have done in the past and have the power to do is say that the CBA process and or the judgment of Goodell was flawed and then they remand the case back to a neutral arbitrator.

That is where Brady and the Pats can make their case for innocence. Any reasonable jurist is going to look at the facts of this case, starting with the fact that the NFL does not have any written proof of the PSI of the footballs Before the game, the science of the ideal gas law, and the witch hunt from the NFL and will toss the entire case against the Pats. Once that ruling comes down, then Kraft should go back to his buddy and demand his money and picks back, and his apology.

Oswlek said:

I'm going to find the politics forum and rebut this there.

Click to expand...

Fine but I really have nothing more to say about it.

Palm Beach Pats Fan said:

Munson is a brain-dead idiot, but....

it is generally true that the courts do not want to interfere with labor disputes unless it is clearly demonstrated that management is screwing over labor and that they are not following the conditions of a valid labor agreement. The courts are good at basically make sure that worker's rights are not trampled. They rarely have an interest in determining the fairness of the ruling in a labor dispute. What gets it into court is showing that a process that was used defied agreed-upon procedures.

Of course, judges are people and some of them like notoriety, so Kessler likely has a federal district or two in mind where a judge would be eager to take on such a high-profile case.

Click to expand...

kessler can't pick the judge. each federal district court has multiple judges. brady can pick where he wants the case to be filed, but the court clerk's office chooses the judge and it is probably done at random. also, the case could be transferred to a different federal district in another state if the venue is chosen incorrectly. i would think brady's best bet is to file in federal court in boston.

FreeTedWilliams said:

Yes and No, what the courts have done in the past and have the power to do is say that the CBA process and or the judgment of Goodell was flawed and then they remand the case back to a neutral arbitrator.

That is where Brady and the Pats can make their case for innocence. Any reasonable jurist is going to look at the facts of this case, starting with the fact that the NFL does not have any written proof of the PSI of the footballs Before the game, the science of the ideal gas law, and the witch hunt from the NFL and will toss the entire case against the Pats. Once that ruling comes down, then Kraft should go back to his buddy and demand his money and picks back, and his apology.

Click to expand...

Amen and I hope that happens. My hope is that Brady presents the same 2-part defense he did in the hearing last month: (1) he didn't do it and (2) even if he did it, the punishment does not fit the crime.

YOUGOTMOSSED said:

You would be naive to believe that politics isn't a factor in federal (or any other) court.

Heck, look at the Supreme Court. They just pulled a constitutional right to gay marriage out of their asses.

Click to expand...

Had to bring it up, didn't you?

YOUGOTMOSSED said:

Probably the politics section but, let me be clear, this isn't a gay bashing comment. The point was courts, even the highest one, disregard the letter of the law for any number of reasons (politics, policy, garden variety corruption). The gay marriage ruling is as good an example as you can find. The right to gay marriage, quite clearly, is not spelled out in the constitution; no society in history (even the ones that openly tolerated homosexuality) ever recognized gay marriage; there is no precedent or any reasonable interpretation of the constitution for such a thing. The court did it anyway.

Again, nothing against gays and, frankly, laws recognizing civil unions would have given gays just about everything they wanted politically. My point is that the ruling was dumb and not based on the constitution or legal precedent.

Click to expand...

There is nothing in the Constitution about "traditional" marriage, either, but the State chooses to be involved - and since the State chooses to be involved, it must, by letter of the Constitution, treat all citizens the same.

So, you're wrong. A civil rights' issue is most certainly the province of the Judicial - see brown v. Board of Education, for example.

shmessy said:

And to the vast majority of US residents who own a televison.

Down here in Maryland we were at a neighborhood get together with 7 families Friday night, after dinner viewing options for the dads were Red Sox- Yankees, Nationals-Orioles or Mens US Soccer vs. Haiti in a NON win-or-go-home match,

Guess which option was chosen by 6 out of 7 (and the fact that that 7th was the hostess' grandfather).

Click to expand...

His point wasn't that you should like or dislike the Red Sox it was whether a non Red Sox or baseball fan should rebuke a sport or team that others may enjoy. Similar to criticizing cricket or ping pong I'd guess.

50-yard-line said:

There is nothing in the Constitution about "traditional" marriage, either, but the State chooses to be involved - and since the State chooses to be involved, it must, by letter of the Constitution, treat all citizens the same.

So, you're wrong. A civil rights' issue is most certainly the province of the Judicial - see brown v. Board of Education, for example.

Click to expand...

the discussion is in the politics section now.

So, we're going to reveal the surface of Pluto close up before Goodell reveals his faux appeal ruling.

Tony2046 said:

His point wasn't that you should like or dislike the Red Sox it was whether a non Red Sox or baseball fan should rebuke a sport or team that others may enjoy. Similar to criticizing cricket or ping pong I'd guess.

Click to expand...

Hey now...you stay away from bringing ping pong into this discussion

Baseball, football, basketball, hockey---whatever floats your boat is cool with me. I actually follow all four, just not to the same degree.

Bountygate originally went to court and they sent it back to the NFL to do it right, thats when they got tags.
I would think a judge would look at this and basically do the same.

cmasspatsfan said:

Bountygate originally went to court and they sent it back to the NFL to do it right, thats when they got tags.
I would think a judge would look at this and basically do the same.

Click to expand...

I would hope that Kessell will thoroughly point out the level of corruption at every level within the governing body of the league that made this mess possible in the first place. Goodell isn't impartial. Vincent isn't impartial. Kensil isn't impartial. The league has no right to make a judgement on this anymore.

Isn't the mlb all star game tomorrow night? So the appeal verdict will be released tomorrow.

Palm Beach Pats Fan said:

Munson is a brain-dead idiot, but....

it is generally true that the courts do not want to interfere with labor disputes unless it is clearly demonstrated that management is screwing over labor and that they are not following the conditions of a valid labor agreement. The courts are good at basically make sure that worker's rights are not trampled. They rarely have an interest in determining the fairness of the ruling in a labor dispute. What gets it into court is showing that a process that was used defied agreed-upon procedures.

Of course, judges are people and some of them like notoriety, so Kessler likely has a federal district or two in mind where a judge would be eager to take on such a high-profile case.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I keep hearing the argument that judges typically don't get involved in these cases because they don't get paid by the case and they typically don't want to take on the extra workload. That may be true in the case of John Doe vs. Acme, Inc. But is Tom Freakin Brady vs. the NFL. Many judges love high profile cases like these. I think Brady will have no problem finding a judge who will hear this case.

Rob0729 said:

Yeah, I keep hearing the argument that judges typically don't get involved in these cases because they don't get paid by the case and they typically don't want to take on the extra workload. That may be true in the case of John Doe vs. Acme, Inc. But is Tom Freakin Brady vs. the NFL. Many judges love high profile cases like these. I think Brady will have no problem finding a judge who will hear this case.

Click to expand...

a judge doesn't have "discretion" to take a case like a lawyer. if the judge dismisses a case before trial he/she has to do so based on the law - not whether they feel like dismissing it. if john doe has a solid case against acme then the judge has to hear john doe's case.

YOUGOTMOSSED said:

Probably the politics section but, let me be clear, this isn't a gay bashing comment. The point was courts, even the highest one, disregard the letter of the law for any number of reasons (politics, policy, garden variety corruption). The gay marriage ruling is as good an example as you can find. The right to gay marriage, quite clearly, is not spelled out in the constitution; no society in history (even the ones that openly tolerated homosexuality) ever recognized gay marriage; there is no precedent or any reasonable interpretation of the constitution for such a thing. The court did it anyway.

Again, nothing against gays and, frankly, laws recognizing civil unions would have given gays just about everything they wanted politically. My point is that the ruling was dumb and not based on the constitution or legal precedent.

Click to expand...

Personally speaking I'm a strict constructionist, and my slaves wouldn't have it any other way...............

We USED to have a process called amending the Constitution that has been abrogated