- Joined
- Jan 6, 2008
- Messages
- 6,090
- Reaction score
- 6,404
Is this a good thing for brady or bad? Not sure what to make of this!
It means nothing relevant yet.
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Is this a good thing for brady or bad? Not sure what to make of this!
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.Is this a good thing for brady or bad? Not sure what to make of this!
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.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.
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.
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.
If you believe that "no news is good news," then it's a good thing.
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....someone mentioned that they only post decisions in the morning, so another day has gone by and nata
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?
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.The panel decision is precedent in the 2nd circuit until it is vacated.
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?
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.
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).Sorry - what did I miss? Who is Judge Lynch?
That's what scares me.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.
I don't think that would happen because an 8 member panel can hear just as many cases as a 9 member panel.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.
If you believe that "no news is good news," then it's a good thing.
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).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.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.