Posted on 04/25/2016 10:04:58 AM PDT by detective
New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady must serve a four-game "Deflategate" suspension imposed by the NFL, a federal appeals court ruled Monday, overturning a lower judge and siding with the league in a battle with the players union.
A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled 2-to-1 that Commissioner Roger Goodell did not deprive Brady of "fundamental fairness" with his procedural rulings. The split decision may end the legal debate over the scandal that led to months of football fans arguing over air pressure and the reputation of one of the league's top teams.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Appeal to the Supreme Court? He will be retired by the time it even gets reviewed by them let alone accepted. Of course the NFLPA could for future use.
Kraft isn’t stupid, he remembers what happened to the Raiders after Davis tried suing the NFL.
At this point, Brady should just serve the suspension. It's very unlikely that the Second Circuit would agree to rehear the case en banc or that the Supreme Court would grant cert. If the NFLPA (the union) doesn't like Goodell having the authority to make himself the arbitrator, make sure that's not in the next CBA.
It was a 2-1 ruling that only said the decision met the minimum legal standard.
It was not an endorsement of Goodell or the process.
I will never forget what the Cheatriots did in that snowy game.
Yep, I still lived in Fort Lauderdale and was a huge Dolphins fan back then.
The ruling handed down last year which prevented Brady from serving his suspension was a liberal, pro-Union judge drunk on power.
Now things are the way they SHOULD be.
The NFLPA does not run the NFL, the owners and their commissioner do.
The original ruling was a Left Wing joke.
Vote Trump, like Brady is...
Yep, it’s systemic throughout the organization. The Dolphins need to beat the Patriots no matter what Kraft does.
5.56mm
And with their Anti-Trust Exemption, the Government holds the ‘Sword of Damocles’ over the NFLs’ heads.
That is general principle that the courts follow.
But in this case the charges were so fraudulent and the process so rigged that even the Court overturned it.
On appeal, the court ruled 2-1 only that the suspension met the minimum legal standard.
It was a bad decision by Goodell. The process was dishonest.
It only survived by 2-1 on extremely narrow grounds.
Professional football isn’t a game, it’s a dog-eat-dog interstate business involving billions of dollars tied up in public/private partnerships, with staggering advertising fees and high-stakes gambling revenue inextricably linked to the end product. If there was ever an industry that screamed out for oversight, it’s football.
The Second Circuit ruled that Goodell acted within his authority under the CBA. I don't know if that's an "endorsement", but it is saying Goodell was acting with his contractual rights granted to him by the NFL owners and the NFLPA.
On appeal, the court ruled 2-1 only that the suspension met the minimum legal standard.
The "standard" was the CBA entered into by the league and the NFLPA. The Second Circuit held that Goodell was simply acting pursuant to the powers the league and the NFLPA agreed to in the CBA. So even if you think the process was "rigged," the NFLPA agreed to that process. End of story.
Disclaimer: I am a lifelong Jets fan who despises the filthy cheating Pats with every fiber of my being.
Quote: “It was a 2-1 ruling that only said the decision met the minimum legal standard. It was not an endorsement of Goodell or the process.”
Once parties agree to binding arbitration, the basis under which any decisions made by the arbitrator(s) may be reviewed is limited. In the civil context it is limited by the American Arbitration Act. In labor disputes it is limited by a similar statute governing labor relations.
Of course the decision was not an endorsement. It was not a condemnation either. It was simply a decision based on the actual, legal authority granted to the reviewing court which is limited. In short, the appeals court found that the lower court had exceeded its authority in handing down its ruling overturning the arbitration.
In reading the lower court’s decision I was left shaking my head as the District Court judge substituted his judgment and his understanding of the facts for the arbitrators. It was as if it were a trial de novo. That is NOT, however, under the statute the role of the reviewing court.
If you are a conservative, this is what you want from your courts. You want them to respect the law even if it doesn’t give the results we would all like. It is how the late Justice Scalia viewed the law. Whereas in contrast a leftist judge would say, “screw the statute I have a job for life and this is the result I want. Yo, law clerk, whip something up to justify it.”
Quote: “Pontius Pilate would be proud of this court. I am not.”
So then, you believe in activist judges. Cool, I can’t wait to see how “proud” you are when instead of exercising judicial restraint and respecting the Heller decision as stare decisis the Supreme Court pisses on the 2nd amendment. Yippeeee, but at least your football team will have won the Soooooper Bowl and that is what really counts. Of course, until some other court that you can be proud of takes it upon themselves to make rulings that the NFL is absolutely liable for every injury that happens to any of its players. Then, football can be ended and we can all be proud of our courts.
Nonsense. Tom Brady richly deserves this suspension.
I understand the issue of the law. I understand that courts allow employers to discipline employees. I understand that that was the basis for the decision.
My point was that the NFL process was so rigged and dishonest that the court overturned the decision. The appeals court ruled 2-1.
The bar to overturn is extremely high. The process must be completely dishonest and egregiously fraudulent. It was dishonest enough to be overturned by the first judge. It was almost dishonest enough to lose on appeal.
It doesn’t have to be an endorsement of Goodell or the process. It simply has to recognize that this was the product of a contractual agreement reached by two sophisticated parties. It’s not the job of the courts to throw out contracts just because one side may have (arguably) made a bad deal.
That's exactly what I thought as well. It's kind of sad that it was even a split panel.
People are judging the court by what they think would be a "just" result rather than whether their decision was in accordance with the law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.