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

neuronet · Jul 7, 2016

KDPPatsfan85 said:
Is this a good thing for brady or bad? Not sure what to make of this!

It means nothing relevant yet.

JetFan79 · Jul 7, 2016

KDPPatsfan85 said:
Is this a good thing for brady or bad? Not sure what to make of this!

Could be very wrong here, but I don't think it has anything to do with Brady.

In the context of this thread, at first I thought it meant a judge released an "opinion" on the Brady case. But wtf does anyone care about any opinion? Just give a damn ruling already.

However I think what 74 is saying, is that on their site (or wherever the 2nd Circuit releases updates), they happened to release an opinion about some case they're currently dealing with (not necessarily the Brady case). No other types of info about any other cases though. So there's still a likelihood that another batch of updates may come out. Potentially including info about the Brady case.

PatsFanSince74 · Jul 7, 2016

KDPPatsfan85 said:
Is this a good thing for brady or bad? Not sure what to make of this!

If you believe that "no news is good news," then it's a good thing.

PatsFanSince74 · Jul 7, 2016

JetFan79 said:
Could be very wrong here, but I don't think it has anything to do with Brady.

In the context of this thread, at first I thought it meant a judge released an "opinion" on the Brady case. But wtf does anyone care about any opinion? Just give a damn ruling already.

However I think what 74 is saying, is that on their site (or wherever the 2nd Circuit releases updates), they happened to release an opinion about some case they're currently dealing with (not necessarily the Brady case). No other types of info about any other cases though. So there's still a likelihood that another batch of updates may come out. Potentially including info about the Brady case.

that's right. i was just observing that they had already posted an unrelated opinion but had not posted any summary orders, without suggesting that they were or were not going to post anything more today, whether in the form of another opinion or a summary order.

supafly · Jul 7, 2016

archstanton543 said:
No because when he appeals to the Supreme Court, he doesn't have to serve his suspension. Just like if the season started tomorrow with no word on the en banc he doesn't' have to serve his suspension.

True, but what makes you confident the Supreme Court would even take the case?

At any rate, the point was that JG should see starting reps in practice, then if things go Brady's way, he can simply take over again.

SHOWTIME15 · Jul 7, 2016

PatsFanSince74 said:
that's right. i was just observing that they had already posted an unrelated opinion but had not posted any summary orders, without suggesting that they were or were not going to post anything more today, whether in the form of another opinion or a summary order.

someone mentioned that they only post decisions in the morning, so another day has gone by and nata

MassPats38 · Jul 7, 2016

PatsFanSince74 said:
If you believe that "no news is good news," then it's a good thing.

There is nothing on his official court docket, so no decision. The public site would likely be updated after the parties get the docket notice. Last entry was 6/22, and that was purely administrative issues.

XLIX · Jul 7, 2016

TommyBrady12 said:
someone mentioned that they only post decisions in the morning, so another day has gone by and nata

I know they only post decisions in the morning, but what we are waiting on is not a "decision" as that term is used here..... so it is not inconceivable that the news we are all waiting on might come sometime in the afternoon one of these days....

DaBruinz · Jul 7, 2016

How can Judge Lynch et al use the "DeflateGate" Ruling to support his decision when the "DeflateGate" decision hasn't been certified due to it being appealed?

SHOWTIME15 · Jul 7, 2016

DaBruinz said:
How can Judge Lynch et al use the "DeflateGate" Ruling to support his decision when the "DeflateGate" decision hasn't been certified due to it being appealed?

The panel decision is precedent in the 2nd circuit until it is vacated.

n6249c · Jul 7, 2016

TommyBrady12 said:
The panel decision is precedent in the 2nd circuit until it is vacated.

So what happens to cases in which it was cited as precedent if it is subsequently vacated? Seems a little sketchy to be using unsettled law as precedent. Or arrogant to consider your decision that is still under appeal to be settled.

Ice_Ice_Brady · Jul 7, 2016

DaBruinz said:
How can Judge Lynch et al use the "DeflateGate" Ruling to support his decision when the "DeflateGate" decision hasn't been certified due to it being appealed?

Sorry - what did I miss? Who is Judge Lynch?

SHOWTIME15 · Jul 7, 2016

n6249c said:
So what happens to cases in which it was cited as precedent if it is subsequently vacated? Seems a little sketchy to be using unsettled law as precedent. Or arrogant to consider your decision that is still under appeal to be settled.

you are absolutely right. the panel in the new arbitration case should not have used Brady v. NFL... either they were foolish or they know already that en banc is not going to be granted. H0wever, attorneys and judges are free to cite the case in making their arguments/rulings. The fact that it is being appealed does not change its precedential value.

XLIX · Jul 7, 2016

Ice_Ice_Brady said:
Sorry - what did I miss? Who is Judge Lynch?

Judge Lynch, a CA2 appeals judge, wrote an opinion 3 weeks ago on a case that is similar to Brady's. In that decision, he cited the CA2 appeals ruling (the one which Brady lost).

XLIX · Jul 7, 2016

n6249c said:
So what happens to cases in which it was cited as precedent if it is subsequently vacated? Seems a little sketchy to be using unsettled law as precedent. Or arrogant to consider your decision that is still under appeal to be settled.

That's what scares me.

patfanken · Jul 7, 2016

One thing to consider if Tom's request for an "en banc" hearing is denied. The fact that the Senate has refused to do its duty based purely on partisan reasons leaves SCOTUS a man down, and it is likely they will still be a man down for all or most of the 2017 session regardless of who wins the presidency. That means its is even less likely that SCOTUS will hear the Brady case even though it has ramifications far beyond his own unjust suspension. SCOTUS will try to limit the cases it hears even further until it can return to full strength. So if only 1o% of those who apply to the Supreme Court get heard in normal circumstances, that percentage will drop even further for the foreseeable future.

Ring 6 · Jul 7, 2016

patfanken said:
One thing to consider if Tom's request for an "en banc" hearing is denied. The fact that the Senate has refused to do its duty based purely on partisan reasons leaves SCOTUS a man down, and it is likely they will still be a man down for all or most of the 2017 session regardless of who wins the presidency. That means its is even less likely that SCOTUS will hear the Brady case even though it has ramifications far beyond his own unjust suspension. SCOTUS will try to limit the cases it hears even further until it can return to full strength. So if only 1o% of those who apply to the Supreme Court get heard in normal circumstances, that percentage will drop even further for the foreseeable future.

I don't think that would happen because an 8 member panel can hear just as many cases as a 9 member panel.
The issue if there are 4 on each side the appeal loses so you need 5 out of 8 instead if 5 out of 9.

Ivan · Jul 7, 2016

PatsFanSince74 said:
If you believe that "no news is good news," then it's a good thing.

I had a bad feeling about it a week or two ago but now I'm feeling like the longer the better. They could have easily dismissed this by now and haven't, and that makes me feel like they are taking the briefs seriously and that favors Brady imo.

XLIX · Jul 7, 2016

Ivan said:
I had a bad feeling about it a week or two ago but now I'm feeling like the longer the better. They could have easily dismissed this by now and haven't, and that makes me feel like they are taking the briefs seriously and that favors Brady imo.

Their inactivity is a double edged sword: It's good that they did not dismiss it out of hand, but it is bad that they never asked the NFL for a response (as yet).

SVN · Jul 7, 2016

Ivan said:
I had a bad feeling about it a week or two ago but now I'm feeling like the longer the better. They could have easily dismissed this by now and haven't, and that makes me feel like they are taking the briefs seriously and that favors Brady imo.

Or maybe they just havent gotten to it yet.

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

Homer Little

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Eff you, Shula

No asterisks

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

Pats, B's, Sox

No asterisks

PatsFans.com Supporter

I heard 10,000 whispering and nobody listening

No asterisks

Pro Bowl Player

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Hall of Fame Poster

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Similar threads