AFL-CIO files amicus brief in support of Tom Brady

[QuantumMechanic]

It only goes to the supremes if brady loses en banc. Logically i cant See en banc being refused or brady losing

It also (potentially) goes to SCOTUS if the en banc court rules for the NFLPA and the NFL petitions SCOTUS to take the case.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Quite honestly if this case ends up at the Supreme Court I think it will depend on the exact language in the filings more than on who nominated which judge. If the NFLPA/Labor side of the argument won't get too greedy and try to overplay its hand and keeps it about "fundamental fairness" I think they have a reasonably good chance at winning this even there.

Well, that's what's nice about Feinberg's brief. He's a very well-known professional arbitrator saying the CA2 decision hurts arbitration, thus giving people who like arbitration a strong reason why they should overturn the CA2 panel decision.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Wallach calls Feinberg's brief "the most important" of all the amicus briefs filed thus far.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

@WallachLegal believes the Feinberg brief is "the most important" of all the amici filed thus far.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Daniel Wallach ?@WALLACHLEGAL 22s22 seconds agoFort Lauderdale, FL
Key point by Ken Feinberg: "The selection of a non-neutral arbitrator does not vitiate the requirement that the arbitrator act impartially."

 

[Koma]

So is that 5 or 6 now? Anyone but me notice the complete LACK of amicus briefs supporting the NFL??

The same way there was a lack of scientists backing Exponent. Of course, Goodell is thinking "No, it's everyone else who is wrong."

 

[Gumby]

I mentioned this when the ruling came down, but the visibility of the case makes it the perfect vehicle for labor to strike a major blow at arbitration agreements. It's going to the Supreme Court.

That said, unless Clinton is elected and gets a justice through, it will just end up 4-4 and the lower court ruling will stand. And even if she does get a justice through (or if the Senate approves Garland in the lame duck session), there's no guarantee the justice will be sufficiently pro-labor and Clinton's never been much of a supporter of the working class; there's also no guarantee Garland would land on the labor side, either.

I think you put too much emphasis on pro-labor vs pro-business. At least 2 of those you thinkof as pro-business are really just literalists/constitutionalists who think you need to follow letter of the law and not try to derive 'intent' or determine inherent 'good' and pull that decision out like a rabbit out of a hat like all four liberals like to do (activist judging). They believe If the letter of the law causes an unjust action that should drive congress or 36 states plus congress to change the law. In this cause i think the letter of the law ALSO SUPPORTS BRADY, so i think your 4-4 theory would also be all wet, if it ever got that far.

 

[primetime]

I think you put too much emphasis on pro-labor vs pro-business. At least 2 of those you thinkof as pro-business are really just literalists/constitutionalists who think you need to follow letter of the law and not try to derive 'intent' or determine inherent 'good' and pull that decision out like a rabbit out of a hat like all four liberals like to do (activist judging). They believe If the letter of the law causes an unjust action that should drive congress or 36 states plus congress to change the law. In this cause i think the letter of the law ALSO SUPPORTS BRADY, so i think your 4-4 theory would also be all wet, if it ever got that far.

lmao oh for sure dude

 

[woolster22]

 

[Mack Herron]

Get your briefs here, get 'em while their hot!

and one more for good measure:
http://www.bplegal.com/webfiles/pdf/Wallach/160531_proposed_amici_brief.pdf

 

[Hammer of Thor]

In his brief, Feinberg describes himself as:

"an experienced arbitrator ... His high profile arbitrations include valuing the Zapruder film and Holocaust Slave Labor attorneys' fees, among many others."

And now he writes about PSI.

You know who else is an experienced arbitrator with lots of high profile cases? Roger Goodell. That's why he alone was best suited to review Brady's case, and his view of arbitration should count just as much as Mr. Feinberg's!

 

[Mack Herron]

 

[Deus Irae]

@WallachLegal believes the Feinberg brief is "the most important" of all the amici filed thus far.

Not to toot my own horn, but just to show that Patsfans.com is worth reading for more than "He sucks! He's great!" discussions about the 53rd player on the roster:

2nd Circuit Agrees to Expedite NFL Appeal - orals no earlier than 2/1/16

Note the reply it got in this forum, which is really what Feinberg is referring to, as YOUGOTMOSSED is essentially personifying Feinberg's concern:

2nd Circuit Agrees to Expedite NFL Appeal - orals no earlier than 2/1/16

And a huge part of the problem is something I noted in the following post:

Brady Wins! BBBBRRRRRRAAAADDDDDYYYYYYY WINS!

What the current ruling essentially does is create overwhelming incentive to choose lawsuits over arbitration, which is supposed to be the exact opposite of what the courts want.

 

[Tony2046]

Daniel Wallach ?@WALLACHLEGAL 22s22 seconds agoFort Lauderdale, FL
Key point by Ken Feinberg: "The selection of a non-neutral arbitrator does not vitiate the requirement that the arbitrator act impartially."

On a positive note, deflategate has added about 1000 words to my vocabulary.

vi·ti·ate
?viSH???t/
verb
formal

1. spoil or impair the quality or efficiency of.
   "development programs have been vitiated by the rise in population"
   • destroy or impair the legal validity of.

 

[ausbacker]

@WallachLegal believes the Feinberg brief is "the most important" of all the amici filed thus far.

I've been of this opinion for some time but it's amazing to me that of all his accomplishments, if Brady is successful, defeating Goodell and confirming the rights of workers to fairness under arbitration may be his biggest contribution of all.

 

[JDot]

On a positive note, deflategate has added about 1000 words to my vocabulary.

vi·ti·ate
?viSH???t/
verb
formal

1. spoil or impair the quality or efficiency of.
   "development programs have been vitiated by the rise in population"
   • destroy or impair the legal validity of.

Lol, same here.

 

[Kjmass1]

It also (potentially) goes to SCOTUS if the en banc court rules for the NFLPA and the NFL petitions SCOTUS to take the case.

True, but then isn't the NFL appealing a decision and then at that point it would result in a 4-4 SCOTUS decision upholding a Brady's win. Sad even the SC is pretty much party line votes.

 

[Fencer]

So is that 5 or 6 now? Anyone but me notice the complete LACK of amicus briefs supporting the NFL??

I noticed, and was going to ask whether what I seemed to be noticing was indeed correct.

 

[Fixit]

On a positive note, deflategate has added about 1000 words to my vocabulary.

Me, too, but mine are all swears.

 

[Fencer]

Great that the AFL-CIO stepped in, but I am a little disappointed that their amicus is a one-trick pony. Its a good trick mind you, but it doesnt seem to go anywhere close to the amicus page limits and doesnt Double-tap any of those other issues like prior notice or that the punishments greatly exceed established precedents/published max punishments.

Also it quotes text from gotohell or the wells report in a way that lends the reader to believe the AFL-CIO thinks the 2Dinks were guilty (See Quote below). .... whereas it could have but doesnt take advantage of the opportunity: in passing to artfully throw in the fact that IGL and uncertainty/uncontrolled measurement data make it ludicrous to attribute deflation to anything other than natural causes.

Different amicus briefs focus on different points.

The scientists are arguing actual innocence. The AFL/CIO is arguing significance of the case, with a nod to process. Feinberg is arguing both significance and process.