Wayne Cubed Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 I think I read that in another NFL related case, the Maurice Clarette case, they asked for a stay and she almost immediately denied it. It was her, and she did turn it down. She basically said there was no reason to overturn the lower courts ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 For the one millionth time, it's about the authority of the commissioner to mete out discipline. The fact that you believe it's still about deflated balls is a tribute to Brady's team of media ballwashers. For the nth time, that is incorrect. Even Brady and the NFLPA are not arguing that. This case is about whether the Commissioner "mete(d) out discipline" appropriately, as per the CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaaadThingsMan Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 I just hope the judges don't end up with beach front properties and vacation homes. You know his lawyers will. This case is costing a ridiculous amount of money for some bull ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Never NEVER Give-up Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 If its delayed beyond the season start date keep his ass on the sideline during the appeal process, see how quickly he changes his tune. Its a sad day when the SCOTUS needs to hear a case about deflated footballs There's no denying Brady's a great QB, but I'm losing any respect I've had for the guy. These appeals are paid-for by the NFLPA - it's quite selfish of him to ask them to do this. Beyond that, his appeals are keeping him in the spotlight and the issue is old, old, old. The 1st quote brings up a great point. It would be dream-like if they granted an appeal but said he could not play until it is held on Oct 24, 2016!! The 2nd quote is spot on. If for no other reason than costing taxpayers money, RBG needs to end the silliness and tell Tom to shut up and sit down until Oct 10th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 There's no denying Brady's a great QB, but I'm losing any respect I've had for the guy. These appeals are paid-for by the NFLPA - it's quite selfish of him to ask them to do this. Beyond that, his appeals are keeping him in the spotlight and the issue is old, old, old. The 1st quote brings up a great point. It would be dream-like if they granted an appeal but said he could not play until it is held on Oct 24, 2016!! The 2nd quote is spot on. If for no other reason than costing taxpayers money, RBG needs to end the silliness and tell Tom to shut up and sit down until Oct 10th. I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS doesn't get paid by the case.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 There's no denying Brady's a great QB, but I'm losing any respect I've had for the guy. These appeals are paid-for by the NFLPA - it's quite selfish of him to ask them to do this. NFLPA cares about the precedent the case will set...to them well worth the few million dollars to knock down Rogers authority..much bigger than just Brady playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaaadThingsMan Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 (edited) For the leagues sake they need to come out on top in this. You can't have these idiots dragging them into court every time they get a fine for a DUI. Edited May 23, 2016 by NorCalBillsSabres Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 I just hope the judges don't end up with beach front properties and vacation homes. You know his lawyers will. We have a guy who can take care of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS doesn't get paid by the case.... I think he meant more to the point of wasting time on a case that is insignificant compared to other court cases. Hence wasting money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 I think he meant more to the point of wasting time on a case that is insignificant compared to other court cases. Hence wasting money. Well, since they decide what cases to hear, it still doesn't make sense. This is what they are paid to do. If they think a case is worthy, it's not a waste of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 Well, since they decide what cases to hear, it still doesn't make sense. This is what they are paid to do. If they think a case is worthy, it's not a waste of money. Not if it's totally unworthy of consideration. It's not as though they go through every single request and then decide to recess. If they have to spend one hour on this it's one less hour they have to spend on a new, potentially worthy case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machine gun kelly Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 My guess at this point is they won't hear the case, but could be wrong. As you know, not the first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 @RapSheet #Patriots QB Tom Brady's request for an en banc rehearing has officially been filed. Here is the cover sheet @RapSheet Here is the link to Tom Brady's request http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/photo/2016/05/23/0ap3000000664429.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 @NFLNow Tom Brady files appeal of 4-game suspension. The latest from @judybattista... WATCH: http://bit.ly/1TsbDyj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 (edited) Not if it's totally unworthy of consideration. It's not as though they go through every single request and then decide to recess. If they have to spend one hour on this it's one less hour they have to spend on a new, potentially worthy case. That's not really how it works, but yes, the Court (in the form of their clerks) does go through every writ of certiorari sent to the SCOTUS. They have to. 8000-10000 a year. 1% of these will go before the Court. So, again, they don't know if this case is any more or less "worthy" (appropriate is a better word) for the Court until they review the writ. There is no more wasted time on this one than any of the thousands of others. Edited May 23, 2016 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 That's not really how it works, but yes, the Court (in the form of their clerks) does go through every writ of certiorari sent to the SCOTUS. They have to. 8000-10000 a year. 1% of these will go before the Court. So, again, they don't know if this case is any more or less "worthy" (appropriate is a better word) for the Court until they review the writ. There is no more wasted time on this one than any of the thousands of others. No, they eventually, in theory, go through them all from what I understand. There is always more and they are just pushed to the next time they are in session. So they are in fact, not getting to one which may have merit for each one that is entirely without merit. And the more learned of the lawyers would know many of the ones that are totally without merit before getting into them. Without me being a lawyer I couldn't say for sure that this is one of them, but it sure seems that way. It could not really set a precedent for other cases since it is only applicable to this particular CBA as far as whether or not Goodell had the power to do what he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 Lifetime ban over 2 psi? For wasting NFL time including destroying of cell phone. Definitely worth a banishment and if it repeats should be erasing of his name from all NFL Record Books. If money spent in useless appeals was charged against money available for players to split maybe there would be less of them. There are plenty of good models of disciplinary offices in all the professional sports that could be used to come up with a reasonable approach that would satisfy all sides. Most of those models do not work with the roster sizes of NFL teams and the moronic partner who tries to get back in court what they cannot win on bargaining table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted May 24, 2016 Share Posted May 24, 2016 No, they eventually, in theory, go through them all from what I understand. There is always more and they are just pushed to the next time they are in session. So they are in fact, not getting to one which may have merit for each one that is entirely without merit. And the more learned of the lawyers would know many of the ones that are totally without merit before getting into them. Without me being a lawyer I couldn't say for sure that this is one of them, but it sure seems that way. It could not really set a precedent for other cases since it is only applicable to this particular CBA as far as whether or not Goodell had the power to do what he did. I agree that the SCOTUS wouldn't hear the case as it doesn't meet any criteria for hearing it. But all certs are reviewed by the Justices' clerks in a pool. This one case of thousands is not "more work" for anyone in the Court, certainly no more than the 99% of those petitions which would also be denied. So the claim that "taxpayer money" would be wasted on a bunch of clerks reviewing this one particular case makes no sense. They don't get to chose which cases to review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 @AdamSchefter Patriots filed amicus brief supporting NFLPA’s appeal of Tom Brady’s suspension in 2nd circuit, per court filing. Pats + NFLPA vs NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 I think Brady wears amicus briefs. Highlights his camel toe. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts