Danger Zone
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2011
- Messages
- 3,718
- Reaction score
- 4,544
Why isn't Berman counted along with Katzman, he's in the en banc isn't he?
As great as that would be, he's not.
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.Why isn't Berman counted along with Katzman, he's in the en banc isn't he?
Why isn't Berman counted along with Katzman, he's in the en banc isn't he?
As great as that would be, he's not.
to be honest, it's best for our judicial system if the appellate court remain independent from the lower court.
to be honest, it's best for our judicial system if the appellate court remain independent from the lower court.
Two possible answers:I
I'm fascinated why the Washington Post has embraced the "cause" and continues to lead the charge vs. the NFL.
Two. Maybe, just maybe, they really are concerned about the truth...don't laugh...there are journalists out there who still think that the truth matters, as quaint as that might sound.
My question is why even worry about who would be available to hear the case if Brady gets his en banc hearing. It is my understanding that IF they decide to hear the case, Brady's suspension is voided (sorry Ravens fans), and by the time they get around to actually give Brady's case an en banc hearing the 2016 season will likely be over. I thought it usually takes 9 months to get one of these cases reheard. So if Brady simply gets his rehearing, we really don't have to worry about his suspension again until the 2o17 season. This could be a big week for us.Lets get to the rehearing first. Thats a big IF. The lawyers in the media are also becoming like sports media members speculating with their own opinions.
Have I got my facts straight or not?
My question is why even worry about who would be available to hear the case if Brady gets his en banc hearing. It is my understanding that IF they decide to hear the case, Brady's suspension is voided (sorry Ravens fans), and by the time they get around to actually give Brady's case an en banc hearing the 2016 season will likely be over. I thought it usually takes 9 months to get one of these cases reheard. So if Brady simply gets his rehearing, we really don't have to worry about his suspension again until the 2o17 season. This could be a big week for us.
Have I got my facts straight or not?
My question is why even worry about who would be available to hear the case if Brady gets his en banc hearing. It is my understanding that IF they decide to hear the case, Brady's suspension is voided (sorry Ravens fans), and by the time they get around to actually give Brady's case an en banc hearing the 2016 season will likely be over. I thought it usually takes 9 months to get one of these cases reheard. So if Brady simply gets his rehearing, we really don't have to worry about his suspension again until the 2o17 season. This could be a big week for us.
Have I got my facts straight or not?
Thanks for the reply, but I thought that historically, it takes a LOT longer than the 3 months you cite before a case is hear by the full panel of judges. 9 months was the time frame I recall hearing as the likely earliest period IF the case gets that far.not quite. brady's suspension is currently stayed pending the 2nd circuit decision to grant en banc. if they say yes to en banc then the stay will continie until it is decided. if they say no brady goes back to being suspended. the case will won't get heard until september at the earliest.
Of course there is no guarantee it will take that long, but bottom line, it sets up to be a pretty exciting week since we SHOULD find out by the end of it, whether they will or will not rehear the case.Close, there's just no guarantee they will take 9 months so there is still a possibility they could return early and uphold the initial ruling. That means there is still a chance he could be suspended for the playoffs, but that's a chance that is definitely worth taking and I believe they will rule for Brady in the end.
Thanks for the reply, but I thought that historically, it takes a LOT longer than the 3 months you cite before a case is hear by the full panel of judges. 9 months was the time frame I recall hearing as the likely earliest period IF the case gets that far.
Well, they need to make a decision before Brady starts serving his suspension so.....9 months won't cut it.