If the other owners did lobby Goodell and I pray that they did, it will be his undoing. I have posted before, some may say ad nauseum how Goodell is NOT a lawyer and in this case being one would have allowed him to act smarter than the way he did.
Since Goodell is acting as a judge ( as well as jury and executioner but that's a different story)he is judged by the standards expected of a judge, one of which is impartiality. When parties who have a vested interest are allowed to have input, it destroys the "appearance of impartiality". Look at the canons of ethics of how the Federal courts views its judiciary.(links below)
While judges are reluctant to overturn decisions of neutral arbitrators , especially in collective bargaining agreement cases which would seem to work against Brady, they are loathe to support decisions where there is
"manifest injustice".
My prediction is that is a term you will hear many times once Goodell issues his joke of a ruling. DeMaurice Smith in prior cases, most recently with Adrian Peterson has cited, "
"a manifest injustice not only to this player but also to the process."
Only this time, the facts strongly support the injustice with the owner's input into the punishment.
http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges
>>>>>
Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities
(A)
Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary.
(B)
Outside Influence.
A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.
COMMENTARY
Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired.<<<<<<<<<
