Chris Brown's take on Brady v. the NFL

Discussion in ' - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Patspsycho, May 29, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Patspsycho

    Patspsycho Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    What is the Norris-LaGuardia Act? The legal issue at the core of Brady v. NFL | Smart Football

    Chris Brown is the smartest football writer I have ever known. He gets right to the crux of the matter and explains how Norris-LaGuardia was invoked by the NFL in their opposition to the decertification.

  2. Mike the Brit

    Mike the Brit Minuteman Target Supporter

    Disable Jersey

    Smart writer indeed. Good read -- thanks.
  3. patriot lifer

    patriot lifer In the Starting Line-Up

    #87 Jersey

    Great article. Great points on both sides.

    As I read the article, I began to remember learning about the legislation back in College. I seem to remember that the courts were always siding with management (as mentioned in the article) and that the Legislative Branch stepped in. While technically the letter of the law states that they cannot impose an injunction, I think that this beckons Congress to either unofficially uphold the law or to overturn it. If this ends up being the reason why an injunction cannot be imposed, that's a shame.

    There are troves of archaic US statutes and common law that are entirely ignored and unrecognized by the modern judicial system. But my guess is that the courts will hide behind this one.
  4. upstater1

    upstater1 Pro Bowl Player

    It's high time for NFL commentators to start wrecking the league in the press. ESPN should start sending out their bazookas and aiming them at the players and owners.
  5. jsull87

    jsull87 In the Starting Line-Up

    I think the reason that law is in place is the courts are not supposed to get involved in the way managers run a business. Yes there can be acts like minimum wage and those base line examples but they are more to protect peoples civil liberties then telling someone how to manage their business e.g safe work environment.

    The complication arises when a judge tells a business owner you must run your business this way or that. e.g terms of employment, % of the pie
  6. ausbacker

    ausbacker Brady > Manning. Supporter

    #87 Jersey

    For mine law is supposed to be a guideline that allows people to settle disputes amongst themselves not the reason that disputes are settled owing to people's interpretation of the law and whoever "tests" rules better.

    This is where society has gone wrong. We litigate rather than solve.
    Last edited: May 30, 2011
  7. Patriotic Fervor

    Patriotic Fervor Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Yes. And I do not like the lawyers vision of the world at all!
  8. patriot lifer

    patriot lifer In the Starting Line-Up

    #87 Jersey

    While partially true, the general theme regarding unions during the Great Depression was union empowerment. It was one of the two major social shifts during the period (the other being Social Security). This legislation had a very specific use and it's quite aged--about 80 years old now.

    You bring up excellent examples with the minimum wage and safe work environment standards, but let's not forget the biggee in all of this...Anti-trust suits due to a monopoly. This is what it's all about. Collusion by 32 companies functioning as a monopoly. There has been plenty of interference of Companies like Microsoft over the years where directives have been issued. To conclude that the essence of the law is that the courts should not "get involved in the way managers run a business" is to ignore the anti-capitalistic nature of the lockout.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page