Alan Millstein: Brady's chances of en banc hearing dramatically improved with latest amicus filings

That's what I'm worried about, too...

jimnance said:

I would not call judges"elites" or an "elite profession", any more than say, engineers or carpenters etc. Position, money and power have never impressed me. What impresses me is excellence-i have way more respect for say, an excellent electrician than a mediocre judge.

Click to expand...

Yo Jim, don't appreciate you lumping engineers/carpenters with lawyers.

Top 10 Most Respected Professions (2014 Harris poll):

1. Doctor;
2. Military officer;
3. Firefighter;
4. Scientist;
5. Nurse;
6. Engineer;
7. Police officer;
8. Religious figure (priest);
9. Architect;
10. Professional athlete.

I think lawyers and car salesmen were tied for last.

P.S. My father was a lawyer.

QuantumMechanic said:

That's what I'm worried about, too...

Click to expand...

The Second Circuit should not allow the public’s perception of the arbitration process to be sullied by a Commissioner impersonating an arbitrator.

Click to expand...

The case for Tom Brady: An arbitrator’s take
Amicus Briefs – Questions and Answers:

I've had a bad feeling about this for a while now.

I mean with all due respect the court could have simply denied the en banc by now if it's so easy

QuantumMechanic said:

That's what I'm worried about, too...

Click to expand...

Yeah it certainly won't be unanimous either way. If this doesn't go Brady's way then try SCOTUS. Regardless...Brady is obviously going as far as he can go with this and that's all I ask. His legacy is completely intact by doing so.

I still say if the league gets away with this then maybe the Patriots should play their own gotcha game. A visiting team or two must be caught cheating next year in Foxboro and the Patriots must demand blood. I hope one of them is the Ravens.

And if they don't get it... then perhaps that will be the kick Kraft needs in the behind to arrange for Goodell's exit.

TommyBrady12 said:

I've had a bad feeling about this for a while now.

I mean with all due respect the court could have simply denied the en banc by now if it's so easy

Click to expand...

As Raffi's quotes are hinting at, often times they just don't issue simple denials. Many times, there are written opinions that come along with it - "dissentals" from those who think en banc should be granted, and "concurrals" from those who think that en banc should not be granted. Here is an interesting article written by Alex Kozinski, the former Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit (and still an active judge on that circuit):

I Say Dissental, You Say Concurral

He notes that often times, most/every active judge either writes a dissental/concurral or attaches his/her name to one someone else has written. He says in effect, these situations should be viewed as de facto en banc reviews because the Court judges are taking it seriously, everyone is involved, and these dissentals/concurrals are often cited in Supreme Court and other decisions.

I know it's not exactly good news, but another Justice right now could be writing something so strong that it entices the Supreme Court to take on the case. Or, as Kozinski noted, it even happened where the dissental was so strong that they actually wound up changing the Court's mind during the process and deciding to grant en banc after all.

To those legal-eagles here, is this decision something that the judges discuss with one another by conference call? Or can they only discuss informally? Or is it supposed to be a decision of each judge, studying the merits basically without input/discussion with the other judges?

Hammer of Thor said:

As Raffi's quotes are hinting at, often times they just don't issue simple denials. Many times, there are written opinions that come along with it - "dissentals" from those who think en banc should be granted, and "concurrals" from those who think that en banc should not be granted. Here is an interesting article written by Alex Kozinski, the former Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit (and still an active judge on that circuit):

I Say Dissental, You Say Concurral

He notes that often times, most/every active judge either writes a dissental/concurral or attaches his/her name to one someone else has written. He says in effect, these situations should be viewed as de facto en banc reviews because the Court judges are taking it seriously, everyone is involved, and these dissentals/concurrals are often cited in Supreme Court and other decisions.

I know it's not exactly good news, but another Justice right now could be writing something so strong that it entices the Supreme Court to take on the case. Or, as Kozinski noted, it even happened where the dissental was so strong that they actually wound up changing the Court's mind during the process and deciding to grant en banc after all.

Click to expand...

Lets hope our buddy Katzmann is going all Col. Slade from Scent of a Woman on the rest of the judges.

"What a crock of ****!"

Hammer of Thor said:

As Raffi's quotes are hinting at, often times they just don't issue simple denials. Many times, there are written opinions that come along with it - "dissentals" from those who think en banc should be granted, and "concurrals" from those who think that en banc should not be granted. Here is an interesting article written by Alex Kozinski, the former Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit (and still an active judge on that circuit):

I Say Dissental, You Say Concurral

He notes that often times, most/every active judge either writes a dissental/concurral or attaches his/her name to one someone else has written. He says in effect, these situations should be viewed as de facto en banc reviews because the Court judges are taking it seriously, everyone is involved, and these dissentals/concurrals are often cited in Supreme Court and other decisions.

I know it's not exactly good news, but another Justice right now could be writing something so strong that it entices the Supreme Court to take on the case. Or, as Kozinski noted, it even happened where the dissental was so strong that they actually wound up changing the Court's mind during the process and deciding to grant en banc after all.

Click to expand...

If you go to the Second Circuit's website and search decisions for the phrase "en banc" you can see what these decisions and the concurrals/dissents look like...

Palm Beach Pats Fan said:

To those legal-eagles here, is this decision something that the judges discuss with one another by conference call? Or can they only discuss informally? Or is it supposed to be a decision of each judge, studying the merits basically without input/discussion with the other judges?

Click to expand...

Not sure. Each circuit is different. What they typically do is an informal straw poll at the outset.

It feels like if there is any truth to Judge Chin's perceived lack of doing his homework on this thing the first time around might be a valid reason alone for en banc.... we shall see.

sb1 said:

If you go to the Second Circuit's website and search decisions for the phrase "en banc" you can see what these decisions and the concurrals/dissents look like...

Click to expand...

Cool - really useful stuff. 1st one I looked at was Turkmen v. Hasty from December 2015. which apparently was a case about "Gitmo"-type containing. 12 active judges were involved here - Katzmann abstained (presumably he was an interested party in some manner) and it was a 6-6 split for en banc so it was denied. All 6 in favor of en banc wrote a dissental as a group; 2 of those against en banc wrote the concurral. Further to Justice Kozinski's point - reading this, and given 8 of the 12 allowable judges attached their names to it, it might have well been an actual en banc case with a final decision consistent with the original.

A little light reading while you are waiting:

how many owners believe the mishandling of non-financial issues facing the league outweigh its demonstrated financial success? Until the answer to that question reaches 24, or the NFL’s revenue takes an abrupt downturn, Goodell is here to stay.

Click to expand...

Hope is dead.

VectorPrime said:

Hope is dead.

Click to expand...

Ive subjugated myself to that fact last year.


Whatever happens in favor of TB12 from hear on in is gravy

venecol said:

Yo Jim, don't appreciate you lumping engineers/carpenters with lawyers.

Top 10 Most Respected Professions (2014 Harris poll):

1. Doctor;
2. Military officer;
3. Firefighter;
4. Scientist;
5. Nurse;
6. Engineer;
7. Police officer;
8. Religious figure (priest);
9. Architect;
10. Professional athlete.

I think lawyers and car salesmen were tied for last.

P.S. My father was a lawyer.

Click to expand...

Sorry man- no disrespect intended. Btw- along with judges, a large% of politicians are/were lawyers. I guess that tells us something. But I'm sure your dad was a damn good lawyer.

VectorPrime said:

Hope is dead.

Click to expand...

Hope is only dead for someone when they are.

NFL is paying off the scribes.