Steph Stradley on 2nd Circuit Deflategate hearing request

[rochrist]

Reading her long post makes me feel like the court system is awful. I mean, there is no opportunity anywhere in the entire process to contest so-called factual findings.

This can go all the way up to the supreme court with outright lies not being contested even once.

Well, Scalia once argued that proof of innocence should not be a bar to execution, as long as you had a fair trial.

 

[Jackson 2]

You are absolutely correct. When I read and listen to assholes like CHB, Volin, Felger, Borges, etc. the contempt they feel toward the fanbase is more than palpable. It's as if we are a collective wad of gum or dog **** that's stuck to the soles of their shoes. Condescending jackasses who embarrass themselves every time they open their mouths or compose a syllable...

For what it's worth, I listened to WEEI this morning from 9:00 until the Red Sox pre game around 12:30 and I even picked up traces of that same condescending attitude from Mike Giardi and Rob Bradford. At least they didn't discriminate. They pretty much crapped on fans of the Pats, Celts and Red Sox pretty evenly.

 

[rochrist]

For what it's worth, I listened to WEEI this morning from 9:00 until the Red Sox pre game around 12:30 and I even picked up traces of that same condescending attitude from Mike Giardi and Rob Bradford. At least they didn't discriminate. They pretty much crapped on fans of the Pats, Celts and Red Sox pretty evenly.

Along with the contempt for the fans, as far as I can tell, someone like Felger absolutely despises every sports organization in the area. Pats, Sox, Celtics, even the Bruins now. And don't event think about soccer. He hates them all.

 

[Jackson 2]

Along with the contempt for the fans, as far as I can tell, someone like Felger absolutely despises every sports organization in the area. Pats, Sox, Celtics, even the Bruins now. And don't event think about soccer. He hates them all.

Ro, I would agree with you except for this: I think he likes the Bruins, and hockey, but they piss him off with their decisions and seeming under-achievement. To state the difference another way: I think he pleasures himself in the men's room when the Pats, Red Sox and Celts lose and when the Bruins lose he throws things around and squeezes the leash around the neck of his pet parrot, Mazz.

 

[Gumby]

Yep.

Thats why I think Brady continuing to fight is better for Bob and the league's future as opposed to Tom and the NFLPA putting down the guns.

Think of this scenario.....if Tom wins the en banc/appeal, what does Goody do? Does he really want to take this to SCOTUS and have the NFL version of Vietnam carry on? I'm pretty confident that the owners do not want to have this kind of PR anymore....

If he decides to take this to SCOTUS, have it heard and lose I really think the owners are going to get serious about considering removing him as commissioner and I think that is what Bob wants as he knows his franchise will never get a fair shake with Goody and his NY brownshirts in power.

Go-to-hell is delusional enough to file for a SCOTUS hearing, but the chances of the supremes being willing to entertain the thought of overturning a lower Court to empower arbitrators US wide to banana-republic dictators within the confines of the USA is IMO about 10 gazillion to 1.

The only way SCOTUS hears anything to do with this case is if Brady loses en banc appeal and further appeals to supremes.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

I'd be stunned if Goody is being allowed to make these decisions at this point.

I disagree. I'd be surprised if he isn't almost completely calling these shots (despite what these insulated owners portray I'd bet most wanted it to go away and still largely do)
My gut tells me Goodell has extreme power. He smacked down owners, the biggest most powerful owners. Consider how hard he laid it to the Patriots on piddly evidence. I don't see how that isn't a message to the 32 as to what he can do.

So I suspect many of these owners have fear of him, fear of getting on the bad side. I suspect owners won't even get together to discuss going against him in fear of what happens when you are exposed for talking about a coup against the king.
IMHO this fight is all about Goodell and his office minions. While some of the initial impetus were a gaggle of owners upset the Patriots win too much, I think Goodell sees this fight as crucial to maintaining his mighty hammer. If he loses it he may(only may) for the first time start hearing a tangible share of the 32 whispering.

 

[BTTA]

I disagree. I'd be surprised if he isn't almost completely calling these shots (despite what these insulated owners portray I'd bet most wanted it to go away and still largely do)
My gut tells me Goodell has extreme power. He smacked down owners, the biggest most powerful owners. Consider how hard he laid it to the Patriots on piddly evidence. I don't see how that isn't a message to the 32 as to what he can do.

So I suspect many of these owners have fear of him, fear of getting on the bad side. I suspect owners won't even get together to discuss going against him in fear of what happens when you are exposed for talking about a coup against the king.
IMHO this fight is all about Goodell and his office minions. While some of the initial impetus were a gaggle of owners upset the Patriots win too much, I think Goodell sees this fight as crucial to maintaining his mighty hammer. If he loses it he may(only may) for the first time start hearing a tangible share of the 32 whispering.

The owners are Goodell's boss, and they are a very active boss. If he doesn't do what they want, he will be in hot water quickly.

I've first hand experience with many executives like Goodell. He doesn't have the personal substance, charisma, or strategic intellect to dominate his boss. There are some CEO's who can dominate Board's of Directors; they are very rare. He isn't one of them.

The individual owners aren't scared of him. There's very little he can do to an individual owner that will actually hurt them.

Kraft hasn't really been hurt by all the stuff Goodell has pulled on the Pats. There's a very cogent argument to be made that punishing the Pats unfairly actually strengthens the financial value of the Pats, because it keeps the League more even competitively, which strengthens the value of every team.

What we are seeing under Goodell is the NFL consolidating from a group of 32 individual businesses to a single large business cooperative with 32 branches.

 

[venecol]

Go-to-hell is delusional enough to file for a SCOTUS hearing, but the chances of the supremes being willing to entertain the thought of overturning a lower Court to empower arbitrators US wide to banana-republic dictators within the confines of the USA is IMO about 10 gazillion to 1.

The only way SCOTUS hears anything to do with this case is if Brady loses en banc appeal and further appeals to supremes.

You mean the same SCOTUS that ruled that Corporations had the same rights as individuals in the Citizens United case? Not sure I agree.

 

[Ring 6]

You mean the same SCOTUS that ruled that Corporations had the same rights as individuals in the Citizens United case? Not sure I agree.

Huh? That isn't even close to what was decided in that case.

 

[venecol]

Huh? That isn't even close to what was decided in that case.

From Justice Stevens dissenting opinion:

OPINION OF STEVENS, J.
CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N
558 U. S. ____ (2010)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NO. 08-205

CITIZENS UNITED, APPELLANT v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

on appeal from the united states district court for the district of columbia

[January 21, 2010]

"The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United may be required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC. The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case."

 

[Gumby]

From Justice Stevens dissenting opinion:

OPINION OF STEVENS, J.
CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N
558 U. S. ____ (2010)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NO. 08-205

CITIZENS UNITED, APPELLANT v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

on appeal from the united states district court for the district of columbia

[January 21, 2010]

"The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United may be required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC. The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case."

You two are going a bit off the rails (of this thread intent) with a political ulterior motive here. Citizens united was a case about big picture constitutional issues with two highly disputed and divergent opinions that needed to be decided one way or the other to ensure everyone knew what is legal and not in election campaigns (the heart of democracy).

Any possible nyjfl deflategate appeal would be about taking ONE single SPORT, (joke-of-a) commisioner's interpretation of CBA law and opening the door to applying that interpretation to ALL LABOR LAW. That just is not terribly likely.

It is only sport at the end of the day,and if gotohell got his short hairs trimmed by the 2CA en banc, the world wont end. Giving coca-Colas, Disney, Apple, GM, etc gotohells authority over their workers [by reversing 2ca] would be a cataclysmic change that this case just doesnt merit. [and therefore they would never even open that door to consider the case if appealed by gotohell, (but might for the inverse reasoning on a TB appeal)].

I would suggest (again) that the CU cause-study belongs in a different thread - maybe other forum. Thx

 

[venecol]

You two are going a bit off the rails (of this thread intent) with a political ulterior motive here. Citizens united was a case about big picture constitutional issues with two highly disputed and divergent opinions that needed to be decided one way or the other to ensure everyone knew what is legal and not in election campaigns (the heart of democracy).

Any possible nyjfl deflategate appeal would be about taking ONE single SPORT, (joke-of-a) commisioner's interpretation of CBA law and opening the door to applying that interpretation to ALL LABOR LAW. That just is not terribly likely.

It is only sport at the end of the day,and if gotohell got his short hairs trimmed by the 2CA en banc, the world wont end. Giving coca-Colas, Disney, Apple, GM, etc gotohells authority over their workers would be a cataclysmic change that this case just doesnt merit.

I would suggest (again) that the CU cause-study belongs in a different thread - maybe other forum. The

Sorry not trying to be political at all. I just don't believe that a pro-business SC would find for Brady is all. Just my opinion. Obviously I hope that you are right.

 

[VectorPrime]

The court has thankfully changed since 2010, Scalia is dead and will be replaced by a liberal judge,

 

[Ring 6]

From Justice Stevens dissenting opinion:

OPINION OF STEVENS, J.
CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N
558 U. S. ____ (2010)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NO. 08-205

CITIZENS UNITED, APPELLANT v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

on appeal from the united states district court for the district of columbia

[January 21, 2010]

"The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United may be required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC. The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case."

That doesn't say what you said it did

 

[QuantumMechanic]

That doesn't say what you said it did

And the majority opinion was clearly grounded on the (IMHO quite correct) concept that individuals don't lose their First Amendment rights because they act through a collective.

I also wonder how many of the low-information anti-CUers realize that if corporations didn't have First Amendment rights, the government could legally censor any media outlet it wanted to, for any reason. And I wonder how many of those same low-information anti-CUers even know that the CU case was about the govt "prohibiting Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries." And that the govt argued before SCOTUS that the govt should even be able to ban anti-candidate books from being released too close to an election.

 

[Joker]

Can the president of the United States declare Roger Goodell a "clear and present danger"?

 

[Raymond]

Can the president of the United States declare Roger Goodell a "clear and present danger"?

Joe, I believe YOU are the Clear and present Danger to Roger Goodell.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Citizens United was not the legal birth of corporate personhood.

Corporate personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia