Bobsyouruncle
Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2012
- Messages
- 5,836
- Reaction score
- 6,904
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.Judges typically do not want to settle labor disputes as it sets precident and influences policy.I don't understand the push for a settlement. Why shouldn't the judge make a decision, it's his job. If a judge pushes for a settlement when he knows legally one side is right seems pretty unethical.
But that is their job. Not wanting to do something you signed up to do is a pretty piss poor excuse.Judges typically do not want to settle labor disputes as it sets precident and influences policy.
Sad I know.But that is their job. Not wanting to do something you signed up to do is a pretty piss poor excuse.
And the precedents exist already, he can follow or change them but "judging" what is correct, then avoiding making a judgement doesn't strike me as an ethical standard for someone who holds the title "judge".
But that is their job. Not wanting to do something you signed up to do is a pretty piss poor excuse.
And the precedents exist already, he can follow or change them but "judging" what is correct, then avoiding making a judgement doesn't strike me as an ethical standard for someone who holds the title "judge".
I generally don't like analogies, this one may prove helpful.But that is their job. Not wanting to do something you signed up to do is a pretty piss poor excuse.
If a judges job were simply to come to a resolution then wouldn't need to be trained in law. Anybody can come to a resolution. As far as I know, a judges job is to administer the law.I generally don't like analogies, this one may prove helpful.
A judge's job is to come to a resolution, whether by getting the parties to settle, or forcing a decision upon them. Settlements are a nice resolution that is final and will have no more complications. Forced decisions are subject to appeal, potential criticism and potential, unintended consequences.
A bounty hunters' job is to bring in a fugitive, either peacefully, or by force. When a fugitive comes peacefully, it is a slam dunk without further complications. Forcing a fugitive can result into some pretty severe, unintended consequences.
Agreed. I tried to keep the analogy simple.If a judges job were simply to come to a resolution then wouldn't need to be trained in law. Anybody can come to a resolution. As far as I know, a judges job is to administer the law.
Getting it out of the court system is not their job. That's like saying my job as a bank teller is to get people out of the bank. It's not, his job is to be a judge, therefore judge the case. Whether he thinks contract disputes belong in court is irrelevant. The law says it belongs there, and he should judge what's correct legally, not what's convenient or most expeditious for him.Other issue is that they want this out of the court system. No matter what he rules, losing party is likely to appeal. Chance that the appeals judge overturns decision, which is embarrassing to any judge. With a settlement, there is no appeal as everyone is equally "satisfied" and it's now completely out of the court system.
I see that as the opposite. I think the NFL would think this outcome worst possible outcome. It would expose the Wells investigation for the sham it was. It could open the League up to defamation suits from Brady, Jastremski, McNally, Kraft, Richie Incognito, and Jim Turner (if the Wells report in this case is shown to a sham it would strengthen defamation suits for any Wells investigation). If making public work product of the Wells investigation shows a concerted effort to manufacture evidence, it could cost the NFL hundreds of millions and most certainly Goodell his job.
Goodell isn't worried about being embarrassed in this situation. He is worried that releasing everything and forcing Pash to testify will provide Brady with proof of malice which would give him a slam dunk defamation suit. With the report that he lost 50% of his endorsements, even an out of court settlement would be in the tens or hundreds of millions. If Brady wins a defamation suit either in court or via settlement, Goodell would be fired by the owners.
And let's not forget that if there is enough evidence that the Wells investigation was a sham could trigger Congress to call for hearings. Goodell testifying to Congress could cost him his job.
I don't understand the push for a settlement. Why shouldn't the judge make a decision, it's his job. If a judge pushes for a settlement when he knows legally one side is right seems pretty unethical.
I don't understand the push for a settlement. Why shouldn't the judge make a decision, it's his job. If a judge pushes for a settlement when he knows legally one side is right seems pretty unethical.