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

[rochrist]

the only thing i really conclude from this chart is that there was a huge dropoff in viewership after Michael Jordan's second retirement from the Bulls (actually, after his first retirement as well). it basically mirrors my own experience--i paid a lot less attention to the NBA after Jordan retired.

this year's game 7 was the third most-watched NBA game since 1993:

LeBron, Cleveland’s Game 7 Triumph Tops 30 Million Viewers — Sports Media Watch

That's great and all, but it doesn't change the fact that viewership for the finals as a whole is half of what it was at it's peak.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Cases are denied on the merits of the case as well as importance. Regardless of how important an issue is if they see no flaw in the decision and no conflict with previous decisions they aren't taking it.

As @PatsFanSince74 points out, for SCOTUS to take it, it would require a ruling by the 8th circuit in favor Petersen at the least. They are not going to take it based on its wide applicability alone. Their docket is limited and they have to pick and choose the most important of the petitions presented to them. For example, even if a case is important, they may punt the issue and say "we'll review this issue if it comes up again."

 

[BelichicksBlackEye]

i still think Katsman is going to delay this request as long as he can

 

[XLIX]

The wheels of justice grind slowly. I know it seems like forever to us and that it's all open-and-shut and what are they waiting for, but 4 weeks with no activity is hardly noteworthy at the federal district court level.

 

[Ring 6]

As @PatsFanSince74 points out, for SCOTUS to take it, it would require a ruling by the 8th circuit in favor Petersen at the least. They are not going to take it based on its wide applicability alone. Their docket is limited and they have to pick and choose the most important of the petitions presented to them. For example, even if a case is important, they may punt the issue and say "we'll review this issue if it comes up again."

All you are saying is that the Supreme Court does not hear all cases.
The reasons for them to hear this case exist. Olson claims the ruling conflicts with Supreme Court precedent. It's fine if you want to think because it's football no one cares but this isn't about football it's about arbitration, labor and the rights of unionized workers. It is far reaching. Doesn't mean they will take it but you keep jumping from reason to reason to justify your negativity.
Last I checked patsfansince74 isn't an authority on how the Supreme Court determines which cases it will take.

 

[Ring 6]

The wheels of justice grind slowly. I know it seems like forever to us and that it's all open-and-shut and what are they waiting for, but 4 weeks with no activity is hardly noteworthy at the federal district court level.

Wasn't there a case that took them 9 months to decide on en banc?
For all we know they are waiting on a Peterson ruling so they haven't even taken Brady under consideration.

 

[Ring 6]

i still think Katsman is going to delay this request as long as he can

Why

 

[BelichicksBlackEye]

Why

well me and my tinfoil hat believe that this en banc hearing will eventually be denied and i am hoping that since katsman knows brady can play as long as they do not respond to the petition he will hold off. i know its just blind hope

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Well, a doomed appeal to SCOTUS would not be a formality if Brady can get a stay. Because then given the timeframe for a cert decision - even one which is denied - Brady might be able to run out the clock on this season before SCOTUS declines to hear the appeal.

Of course, if CA2 and SCOTUS both think any cert petition is likely doomed, it'll be rather hard to get a stay.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

All you are saying is that the Supreme Court does not hear all cases.
The reasons for them to hear this case exist. Olson claims the ruling conflicts with Supreme Court precedent. It's fine if you want to think because it's football no one cares but this isn't about football it's about arbitration, labor and the rights of unionized workers. It is far reaching. Doesn't mean they will take it but you keep jumping from reason to reason to justify your negativity.
Last I checked patsfansince74 isn't an authority on how the Supreme Court determines which cases it will take.

Thanks, but I realize the case is not about deflated footballs at this stage. my point is that just because a case has large implications does not mean that SCOTUS will take it. They turn down MANY important cases for various reasons. And just because olson says there is a conflict does not mean SCOTUS will have the same view. He is just representing his client. If the NFL had hired him instead he would say "no conflict exists" and he would present it articulately and well-reasoned. You act like SCOTUS will put this case at the top of their agenda and the earth will stand still until they decide in brady's favor.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Well, a doomed appeal to SCOTUS would not be a formality if Brady can get a stay. Because then given the timeframe for a cert decision - even one which is denied - Brady might be able to run out the clock on this season before SCOTUS declines to hear the appeal.

Of course, if CA2 and SCOTUS both think any cert petition is likely doomed, it'll be rather hard to get a stay.

Well, QM, we've been commenting on this for a long time and it looks like we're finally at the "grasping for straws" stage. I think we're just gonna have to let this play itself out and keep our expectations low.

 

[Ring 6]

Thanks, but I realize the case is not about deflated footballs at this stage. my point is that just because a case has large implications does not mean that SCOTUS will take it. They turn down MANY important cases for various reasons. And just because olson says there is a conflict does not mean SCOTUS will have the same view. He is just representing his client. If the NFL had hired him instead he would say "no conflict exists" and he would present it articulately and well-reasoned. You act like SCOTUS will put this case at the top of their agenda and the earth will stand still until they decide in brady's favor.

Huh? When did I say that?
You said no way they hear it. I say it's much like cases they take so there is a chance.
Saying that a lawyer could argue 2 sides has nothing to do with the merits of a particular case. You keep changing the reason but still haven't shown me how this case has any less chance than other cases put before them.

 

[supafly]

So what does Sharks of Vegas think the court will do?

Obviously, both Goodell and Kensil will be fired, as well as punishments for both the Ravens and Colts. Oh, and the whole focus of everything is not on the Patriots but the referees.

 

[Joker]

I'd prefer a more reasonable take like utter destruction, but that's a good start Supa....

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Huh? When did I say that?
You said no way they hear it. I say it's much like cases they take so there is a chance.
Saying that a lawyer could argue 2 sides has nothing to do with the merits of a particular case. You keep changing the reason but still haven't shown me how this case has any less chance than other cases put before them.

I said "don't count on it" which is far different from saying "never."

 

[Ring 6]

I said "don't count on it" which is far different from saying "never."

Fair enough. I was responding to you and a guy saying the chance was zero and probably got you mixed up.
In any event of course there is no certainty what the Supreme Court would do but this case definitely is in the realm of something they would take.
Let's hope it never comes to that but if so there certainly is a shot.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

We've been living this fore 500+ days, what's another month in the grand scheme of things (though running into training camp and early season is the concern for us as fans).

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Fair enough. I was responding to you and a guy saying the chance was zero and probably got you mixed up.
In any event of course there is no certainty what the Supreme Court would do but this case definitely is in the realm of something they would take.
Let's hope it never comes to that but if so there certainly is a shot.

Look i'm on your side - i want an en banc hearing first and SCOTUS review as a backup option.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

It's about time to hear from the high council, though!

 

[JarOfMayo51]

well me and my tinfoil hat believe that this en banc hearing will eventually be denied and i am hoping that since katsman knows brady can play as long as they do not respond to the petition he will hold off. i know its just blind hope

Thats a real dangerous game though, because if they wait a long time and then they officially deny the en banc, the Patriots could be pushing into the playoffs or be in the playoffs and Goodell would love nothing more than a chance to bench Brady with a suspension for their playoff run, especially if the Jets are in the race