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

XLIX said:

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).

Click to expand...

They want to wait until end of December to make sure the timing is right, as per Goodell's instructions.

I wonder...say Goodell steps off a curb and ...uh...trips and falls under the wheels of an oncoming Mack truck...with his brains splattered all over the asphalt is there really any need to continue this azzole's "case"?

TommyBrady12 said:

They want to wait until end of December to make sure the timing is right, as per Goodell's instructions.

Click to expand...

That line of thinking has been in the deepest recesses of my mind recently. Just one example of how jaded I've become.

Joker said:

I wonder...say Goodell steps off a curb and ...uh...trips and falls under the wheels of an oncoming Mack truck...with his brains splattered all over the asphalt is there really any need to continue this azzole's "case"?

Click to expand...

Do you have a Mack truck? I have some good tripping shoes.

no comment............................

Joker said:

I wonder...say Goodell steps off a curb and ...uh...trips and falls under the wheels of an oncoming Mack truck...with his brains splattered all over the asphalt is there really any need to continue this azzole's "case"?

Click to expand...

I think that question is worth exploring.

Joker said:

I wonder...say Goodell steps off a curb and ...uh...trips and falls under the wheels of an oncoming Mack truck...with his brains splattered all over the asphalt is there really any need to continue this azzole's "case"?

Click to expand...

so, nothing is splattered all over the asphalt?

Joker said:

I wonder...say Goodell steps off a curb and ...uh...trips and falls under the wheels of an oncoming Mack truck...with his brains splattered all over the asphalt is there really any need to continue this azzole's "case"?

Click to expand...

If I understand what you're saying correctly... who's on the next plane to New York?

They would name a street after you in Boston...

Jlaff said:

They would name a street after you in Boston...

Click to expand...

They'd GIVE you Boston...

now now now....calm down out there...it was just the idle musings of a poor little old man on a pension...sour grapes and all that.

I mean really..why would ANYONE ever question the motives of such a big man in the world? To him I'm just an ant, an inconsequential nothing, nowhere, nobody insect there to be crushed under his 1200 dollar Bruno Maglis. A man has to know his place in this world and he has to heel to the commands of his betters.

Nah...just the musing of a poor old dejected Pats fan just daydreaming ...you know...what if ? I'm probably all alone in my thinking but sometimes I wonder..."gee, what if there are like thousands and thousands of grown men, hard working, no nonsense, give you the shirt off their back but suffer no liars men...men that are sick and effin' tired of being portrayed as cheating, lying scumbags by the "sports media" and the NFL management? What if a few of these men decided "we think it's time someone folded their bluffing hands once and for all"?

Nah, couldn't happen...but that won't EVER stop MY dreams....NEVER.

AndyJohnson said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well that is the reason why they likely won't accept anything more than the most pressing cases until they are at full strength. The chance for so many ties would sort of defeat the purpose of having a "high court"
if too many of their decisions are thrown back to the appeals level.

I've heard a number of so called supreme court "experts" make the observation that the court will likely take fewer cases in the 2017 session because it will likely not have a 9th member until the last quarter of 2017 at the earliest regardless of who wins in November

Joker said:

I wonder...say Goodell steps off a curb and ...uh...trips and falls under the wheels of an oncoming Mack truck...with his brains splattered all over the asphalt is there really any need to continue this azzole's "case"?

Click to expand...

The problem with that is Goodell isn't the prime mover in the Brady case. He serves the owners. Whoever would take his place would still peruse the case because that's what the owners want.

archstanton543 said:

The problem with that is Goodell isn't the prime mover in the Brady case. He serves the owners. Whoever would take his place would still peruse the case because that's what the owners want.

Click to expand...

Galeb said:

View attachment 13353

Click to expand...

The owners wanted taglibue out because - he has intelligence and can't be pushed around like they can with Goondell.

TommyBrady12 said:

The owners wanted taglibue out because - he has intelligence and can't be pushed around like they can with Goondell.

Click to expand...

That's probably why he only served as commissioner for 16 years. >>

Galeb said:

That's probably why he only served as commissioner for 16 years. >>

Click to expand...

They wanted a new pushover. Maybe taglibue had a backbone.

Mack Herron said:

Click to expand...

Great, so they'll have it decided just in time for the playoffs...

Mack Herron said:

Click to expand...

But that still means they can deny the en banc petition this summer....no oral argument needed for that. I think what wallach means is that if en banc is granted the oral argument won't be until the fall at the earliest. Maybe i'm reading that wrong.