Brady's legal team expands

Pushing aside his many and varied achievements but if ultimately, Brady is successful, a minor event easily explained by science, may be his major contribution to both the greater NFLPA good and US labor relations. Seriously, the guy is a God amongst men.

QuantumMechanic said:

If they dropped the suspension Brady couldn't fight (other than a separate defamation case) even if he wanted to. The federal courts are limited to hearing "actual cases or controversies". If the NFL announced they dropped all punishment the case would be moot and that'd be the end of any further appeals.

What I don't know is if mooting the case leaves the precedent they just won in place or if it undoes the entire case.

Click to expand...

The precedent stays, just the slightest chance of this going forward to en banc or scotus, and it is very slight, might make the nfl think twice about being hard asses.

Patsfanin Philly said:

It would be the equivalent of Sen. George Aiken's comment during Vietnam, " declare victory and get the troops out". Goodell could end the court case ( by dropping the suspension) and claim the precedent stands....It's a win-win ( which means it will never happen) for the league and Brady/Pats. It's Goodell's ego which prevents him from negotiating or admitting the league made a mistake or acted out a vendetta.

Click to expand...

I think it's the owners. But, otherwise I agree. The rational thing to do would have been to drop the Suspension or take it to one game. But, the owners aren't rational. Which means that no one knows what the **** is going to happen.

VectorPrime said:

I think a lot is hedging on how the 8th circuit appeals rules on Peterson. If the NFL loses then Brady's chances to get heard higher up the chain get a lot better.

Click to expand...

I haven't read much about the Peterson case, but my understanding is that he and Brady were punished under different parts of the CBA, so it's a different (albeit similar) legal issue between the two cases. The point in saying that is to tamp down some hopes the USSC will take the case to resolve a circuit split.

cmasspatsfan said:

The precedent stays, just the slightest chance of this going forward to en banc or scotus, and it is very slight, might make the nfl think twice about being hard asses.

Click to expand...

I just talked to a law professor friend of mine about this and he said: "I imagine that if one party unilaterally gives in, the other party could use that as a reason to ask the court to vacate the decision, which may or may not work."

Given that, I doubt the NFL would ever drop the suspensions because they wouldn't want to take the chance of losing the favorable precedent they just won.

ausbacker said:

Pushing aside his many and varied achievements but if ultimately, Brady is successful, a minor event easily explained by science, may be his major contribution to both the greater NFLPA good and US labor relations. Seriously, the guy is a God amongst men.

Click to expand...

If politics are in his future, it is a great way to polish his bona fides....

ForThoseAboutToRock said:

I haven't read much about the Peterson case, but my understanding is that he and Brady were punished under different parts of the CBA, so it's a different (albeit similar) legal issue between the two cases. The point in saying that is to tamp down some hopes the USSC will take the case to resolve a circuit split.

Click to expand...

It isn't the original punishment itself that Peterson and Brady filed suit against, it was the unfairness of the arbitration process for appeals.

They were both arbitrated as per Article 46 of the CBA. For Peterson, the Commissioner designated someone else (not himself) as arbiter. The Doty ruling for Peterson found that the arbiter did not draw his decision from the essence of the CBA.

The NFL literally used the same "broad discretion" argument in Peterson that they used against Brady.

XLIX said:

It isn't the original punishment itself that Peterson and Brady filed suit against, it was the unfairness of the arbitration process for appeals.

They were both arbitrated as per Article 46 of the CBA. For Peterson, the Commissioner designated someone else (not himself) as arbiter. The Doty ruling for Peterson found that the arbiter did not draw his decision from the essence of the CBA.

The NFL literally used the same "broad discretion" argument in Peterson that they used against Brady.

Click to expand...

Ah, my understanding was that the Peterson case was about the post-hoc application of a new discipline scheme. Makes sense that the new scheme was rooted in Art 46. You've piqued my interest to check into this a little more - thanks!

ForThoseAboutToRock said:

Ah, my understanding was that the Peterson case was about the post-hoc application of a new discipline scheme. Makes sense that the new scheme was rooted in Art 46. You've piqued my interest to check into this a little more - thanks!

Click to expand...

Yes, the post-hoc application of the new discipline scheme was what started getting the ball rolling for Peterson.

He appealed the punishment and received a grossly unfair appeal hearing - sound familiar? So the lawsuit he filed was against the fundamental unfairness of the NFL's appeal process.

QuantumMechanic said:

I just talked to a law professor friend of mine about this and he said: "I imagine that if one party unilaterally gives in, the other party could use that as a reason to ask the court to vacate the decision, which may or may not work."

Given that, I doubt the NFL would ever drop the suspensions because they wouldn't want to take the chance of losing the favorable precedent they just won.

Click to expand...

Ahh, I misunderstood your original question, that's what I was told too by a lawyer friend too.

YOUGOTMOSSED said:

Not cool, bro.

I've noticed from Scalia's decisions that he does actually seem to have a pretty healthy respect for principals of due process (at least in criminal matters). I wouldn't take it as a given that he would have ruled against Brady here.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I've very liberal and in general did not like Scalia at all, but a) I'm not a fan of celebrating death, and b) I agree that it's not inconceivable that he might have been sympathetic to Brady's case here. I really, really doubt it, but it's at least possible.

XLIX said:

Yes, the post-hoc application of the new discipline scheme was what started getting the ball rolling for Peterson.

He appealed the punishment and received a grossly unfair appeal hearing - sound familiar? So the lawsuit he filed was against the fundamental unfairness of the NFL's appeal process.

Click to expand...

Fundamental fairness - such a garbage test. 2nd cir uses it to mean whatever the F they want it to mean - this opinion was literally "there's no fundamental unfairness here." Great - thanks for expounding on this utterly meaningless doctrine.

QuantumMechanic said:

I just talked to a law professor friend of mine about this and he said: "I imagine that if one party unilaterally gives in, the other party could use that as a reason to ask the court to vacate the decision, which may or may not work."

Click to expand...

I would imagine the NFL would make it a condition of dropping the suspension that Brady not do that.

BradyFTW! said:

Agreed. I've very liberal and in general did not like Scalia at all, but a) I'm not a fan of celebrating death, and b) I agree that it's not inconceivable that he might have been sympathetic to Brady's case here. I really, really doubt it, but it's at least possible.

Click to expand...

Goodell's death may put that sentiment to the test, but I agree wholeheartedly with a).

QuantumMechanic said:

I just talked to a law professor friend of mine about this and he said: "I imagine that if one party unilaterally gives in, the other party could use that as a reason to ask the court to vacate the decision, which may or may not work."

Given that, I doubt the NFL would ever drop the suspensions because they wouldn't want to take the chance of losing the favorable precedent they just won.

Click to expand...

That's why if they were smart they wouldn't drop the punishment entirely, but instead would drop the 4 game suspension down to a fine as a gesture of good will. Brady would almost certainly take it, and the league wouldn't be unilaterally giving in, and instead would just be rewriting the last year as them being a reasonable party acting in good faith. They still have to punish Brady, but ideally should do it in a way that would be acceptable enough for him to drop the appeal. A fine should fit, given how much money he has.

TommyBrady12 said:

I wouldn't read too much into this as a likelihood of getting an banc appeal

Click to expand...

You had to know you'd get hit for this one. LOL

But I do understand your point and would not disagree with it.

BradyFTW! said:

That's why if they were smart they wouldn't drop the punishment entirely, but instead would drop the 4 game suspension down to a fine as a gesture of good will. Brady would almost certainly take it, and the league wouldn't be unilaterally giving in, and instead would just be rewriting the last year as them being a reasonable party acting in good faith. They still have to punish Brady, but ideally should do it in a way that would be acceptable enough for him to drop the appeal. A fine should fit, given how much money he has.

Click to expand...

While I agree whole-heartedly, I also feel this is just as unlikely as any other scenario that would remotely seem to benefit Tom Brady. Sorry, it's just not going to happen. Goodell is still talking about integrity of the game and using "independent" as the subject and predicate of almost every sentence he utters about the matter. That hardly sounds like a guy ready to "act [in] good faith" or in a hurry to exercise a "gesture of good." I am not in anyway attacking you by using direct quotes . . . just pointing out that, while logical, it would still just be wishful thinking on our collective part.

Ted Olsen specializes in arguing cases before the Supreme Court, which is where obviously the Brady team thinks, hopes this case is going.

AtomicDawg said:

Click to expand...

How does a judge who we know is going to rule against Brady help him?