TB Suspension: Cheater free to play again
- Thread starter IdiotKicker
- Start date
If I recall correctly, you thought we might win with Berman on that issue, and yeah, the panel made a mess of it. Clement was within his rights to address it on appeal, but the panel really needed to work through it in a thoughtful way. It didn't, and now this is low hanging fruit.
Right now the issue is a Swiss Army knife. It highlights a big vulnerability, makes the panel look stupid and universalizes the problem well beyond TB. Judges in the main love arbitration, but it really needs to work fairly.
If rehearing is granted, Olson will probably have a clean slate, and then we'll learn a lot about the relative strength of these arguments in his view.
You think I don't know that? Of course I know that! Why wouldn't I know that?
Maybe I should be asking you those questions.......
Probably doesn't mean a whole lot but..
For those on mobile - CA2 allowed all 5 amicus briefs. One twitter follower of Wallach's noted this:
But that seems like wishcasting to me. Again for those on mobile it says that "CA2 could have held the motions for leave, deny the pet., and then deny motions as moot."
For those on mobile - CA2 allowed all 5 amicus briefs. One twitter follower of Wallach's noted this:
But that seems like wishcasting to me. Again for those on mobile it says that "CA2 could have held the motions for leave, deny the pet., and then deny motions as moot."
Last edited:
I think it's positive, though not particularly surprising given the lack of opposition, that the seemingly late filed professors brief was not bounced. That said, that's the one brief that I have not read so maybe it adds little to the mix. Does anyone have a link to that one that they can post?
In regard to the professors brief I think I read the filing atty was not a member of the CA2 bar and had to email the brief rather than e-file. So it was filed on time per that process but not available at midnight to those with Pacer access.
http://thesportsesquires.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Professors-Amicus-Brief.pdf (taken from the patspulpit article)
Cabin, I was referring to the second brief filed by professors. That brief is not summarized or linked above.
What is the norm here for the courts, and the 2nd Circuit in particular? Even if they were on a path to deny, I'd think it would be kind of rude to exclude amicus briefs that parties spent considerable time and resources on. Why not allow them and at least give the perception that their positions were considered before reaching a final decision?
Oh, you meant the 5th brief from those other professors...
I believe this is it:
http://www.bplegal.com/webfiles/pdf/Wallach/160531_proposed_amici_brief.pdf
While we're waiting patiently (or not).....
I couldn't find any reference to the following with a brief search of the site and the briefs. If it's here (or there) already, my apologies. I'm not sure what the relevance is now, but it certainly ties in with Olsen's central argument.
https://www.naarb.org/code.html
Quoting from the Code: "1. Essential personal qualifications of an arbitrator include honesty, integrity, impartiality and general competence in labor relations matters."
To state the obvious, Rog is not a professional arbitrator, but is there an argument that by implication these minimal professional responsibilities also attach to his performance?
Edit: I should have mentioned that the result is also dictated by the FAA and its standard of 'evident partiality', as applied by the 2d Circuit. Bias is not a disqualifier but partiality is.
.
I couldn't find any reference to the following with a brief search of the site and the briefs. If it's here (or there) already, my apologies. I'm not sure what the relevance is now, but it certainly ties in with Olsen's central argument.
https://www.naarb.org/code.html
Quoting from the Code: "1. Essential personal qualifications of an arbitrator include honesty, integrity, impartiality and general competence in labor relations matters."
To state the obvious, Rog is not a professional arbitrator, but is there an argument that by implication these minimal professional responsibilities also attach to his performance?
Edit: I should have mentioned that the result is also dictated by the FAA and its standard of 'evident partiality', as applied by the 2d Circuit. Bias is not a disqualifier but partiality is.
.
Last edited:
Published yesterday, this is some nice work by Lester Munson --
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/16175245/brady-deflategate-supreme-court
Probably the best piece I've seen by him. It is directly responsive to more than a few questions posted here, and he does a nice job explaining the amicus strategy clearly to a lay audience, which is a formidable assignment.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/16175245/brady-deflategate-supreme-court
Probably the best piece I've seen by him. It is directly responsive to more than a few questions posted here, and he does a nice job explaining the amicus strategy clearly to a lay audience, which is a formidable assignment.
I was going to post the same thing. I wonder if the addition of Olson has given him a bit of pause. It's far more balls and strikes than his earlier silliness.
The same occurred to me. Munson is wary now. He put thought and effort into this piece, which is not only the best DFG piece by him, it's the best NFL work I've seen by him period. Well worth reading by our IANAL friends here.
I think the consensus among the litigators here before Olson was retained and this latest round of briefs was filed was that en banc review was highly unlikely (and some said nil) and that the chances of the Supremes granting cert was just as unlikely. Or perhaps slightly more likely but still a huge long shot.
I also think that the strength of the briefs and the identity of some of the authors has moved the needle for some.
As to the possibility of Cert, Munson notes:
I also think that the strength of the briefs and the identity of some of the authors has moved the needle for some.
As to the possibility of Cert, Munson notes:
My question for the folks here is has your opinion regarding the likelihood of cert being granted changed? If so, has it changed materially?
The cert grant rate for "paid" cases -- and this is nothing if not a paid case -- is around 5%. If you have a genuine Circuit conflict, or an important federal question, that can edge up to 20 to 25%; it's not a raw stats thing -- it's a feel/judgment thing. I have no opinion on that -- I'm waiting for Clement to do his work, if the court invites him to in response to the rehearing petition. (I know -- "Lazy. Sad!").
I am keeping an eye on the cert grants for next Term, which remain slow. As of May 31, the Court has filled its calendar for only Oct and a good portion of Nov next Term. See --
I think that could help us at the margins.
I am keeping an eye on the cert grants for next Term, which remain slow. As of May 31, the Court has filled its calendar for only Oct and a good portion of Nov next Term. See --
I think that could help us at the margins.
I don't know...I think the USSC is deliberately granting fewer certs because they know that they'll be down at eight Justices for most of the term. That could easily work against Brady.
By the way, I also want to disagree about this being Munson's best piece. He's just shifted his obsequiousness from Goodell to Olsen. It reads like a star-struck junior staffer who can't believe that TED! OLSEN! is now involved here:
Last edited:
No doubt. He straightened up his room knowing his parents were due back from vacation.
I think there is a good chance we'll hear something before the end of June, and particularly before the July 4 holiday. I can think of 4 possibilities; there may be others.
1. Denial of petition for rehearing.
2. Denial of petition with one or more dissents.
3. Request to NFL to respond to petition.
4. Grant of petition.
That is not necessarily the order of likelihood, though I think 4 is extraordinarily remote. I'd want to hear from the NFL before committing Court resources to this.
No. 2 would be very interesting for cert.
1. Denial of petition for rehearing.
2. Denial of petition with one or more dissents.
3. Request to NFL to respond to petition.
4. Grant of petition.
That is not necessarily the order of likelihood, though I think 4 is extraordinarily remote. I'd want to hear from the NFL before committing Court resources to this.
No. 2 would be very interesting for cert.
"It's June 29. Do you know where your order is?" (apologies to the copyright owner.)
More seriously, for DCM and other litigation types, is there any significance to the length of time being given to the appeal? All I can glean from it is that they're not summarily disposing of this out of hand.
Or maybe, they just haven't gotten to it.
Looks like the summary orders of the day have been posted.
More seriously, for DCM and other litigation types, is there any significance to the length of time being given to the appeal? All I can glean from it is that they're not summarily disposing of this out of hand.
Or maybe, they just haven't gotten to it.
Looks like the summary orders of the day have been posted.
There is a lot to read if the petition and amicus briefs are reviewed with care, as I expect they will be. This is a good sized court with lots of busy judges. I draw no inferences from the time that has elapsed other than the judges doing their jobs. I think it's likely we'll hear something by the end of next week.
yeah.. my twitter is blowing up:
Ryan Hannable @RyanHannable 2m2 minutes ago
Per multiple reports, the second circuit denied Tom Brady's request for rehearing. 4-game suspension will stick. Supreme Court only option
Per Hannable:
Per multiple reports, the second circuit denied Tom Brady's request for rehearing. 4-game suspension will stick. Supreme Court only option
Ryan Hannable @RyanHannable 2m2 minutes ago
Per multiple reports, the second circuit denied Tom Brady's request for rehearing. 4-game suspension will stick. Supreme Court only option
Per Hannable:
Per multiple reports, the second circuit denied Tom Brady's request for rehearing. 4-game suspension will stick. Supreme Court only option
I want Jimmy G to win @ARI on the back of BB's even more improved defense just to see some of the reactions.
The Union has to try and take this to the next level. There is just too much to lose from the Union's viewpoint if Goodell as an arbitrator does not have to be fair and unbiased in his judgements.
Ted Olson wasn't brought is to file a long shot petition for en banc hearing.
We're on to Washington.
Whether or not he petitions for cert, Brady is going to serve the suspension the first four games of the season.
Here are the possibilities:
1) He's denied a stay from the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court. He serves the suspension whether he petitions for cert or not.
2) He gets a stay. Petition is due in 90 days. Assuming no extensions are granted and the petition is filed on the due date, his petition will be considered November 30. Earliest he would be denied is November 25. He will have played the first three games, and will now stand to miss games 11-15.
3) He gets a stay. Petition is due in 90 days. The NFL requests and receives an extension for the opposition. He may miss goddamned playoff games or the Super Bowl.
4) He gets a stay, and the petition is granted. Also, unicorns and rainbows.
They're either going to drop it, or petition for cert with no stay. They can still try to fight for the principle.
BTW, pretty funny that the Peterson case (argued last October in the fastest circuit in the country) hasn't been decided.
Here are the possibilities:
1) He's denied a stay from the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court. He serves the suspension whether he petitions for cert or not.
2) He gets a stay. Petition is due in 90 days. Assuming no extensions are granted and the petition is filed on the due date, his petition will be considered November 30. Earliest he would be denied is November 25. He will have played the first three games, and will now stand to miss games 11-15.
3) He gets a stay. Petition is due in 90 days. The NFL requests and receives an extension for the opposition. He may miss goddamned playoff games or the Super Bowl.
4) He gets a stay, and the petition is granted. Also, unicorns and rainbows.
They're either going to drop it, or petition for cert with no stay. They can still try to fight for the principle.
BTW, pretty funny that the Peterson case (argued last October in the fastest circuit in the country) hasn't been decided.
Last edited:
Decision basically says the union gave the Ginger Hammer all this power, so now you have to deal with it.
Burn the NFLPA down. Useless bunch of jackholes.
Fight for the principle of the thing.
Burn the NFLPA down. Useless bunch of jackholes.
Fight for the principle of the thing.
So you're not going to burn me for being off by 3 days, right?
Here you go boys and girls:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf
See Rules 13 through 16 and Rule 23.
You are absolutely right that TB and the Pats have more skin in the game at this point in terms of the timing of a suspension. Rehearing was no risk; not this.
He may well get a stay. But if cert is denied -- and there is a high probability of that -- the stay is immediately vacated. Which would put him, scheduling wise, at the complete mercy of Paul Clement, who could time an opposition just right, calculating in a time for reply and the Court's conference schedule -- and ultimately Roger Goodell.
There will be no mercy, and frankly there isn't much argument against suspending TB for a playoff game if things work out that way. You go into this with your eyes wide open.
You guys really think they'd force Brady out of a playoff game? Maybe I am completely naive but I have my doubts.
They'd LOVE to. Look what they've done so far. Brady should just retire. Start an independent league called the FUGFL.
There are 31 other owners who get miserable old-man semi-boners at night thinking about Brady being suspended for a playoff game. OF COURSE they would suspend him for a postseason game. Think of who you're dealing with: rich emotional infants.
Absolutely -- and it would not be unfair from a certain perspective.
Choices have consequences. TB has complete control if he declines to ask for a stay. You ask for a stay, you are ceding that control. You know that going in. All you need to do is read the Court Rules.
After watching how far the league has gone to make a point about the power of the Commissioner, you think they would hesitate to impose a suspension because of the playoffs?
They would do this in a heartbeat.