Indeed it isn't, because if it was, that grinning p***k, Shady Brady, wouldn't be within a hundred miles of a football stadium on opening day.
Attention Sheldon Richardson: DO NOT Accept Your Suspension!!
- Thread starter Green Jets & Ham
- Start date
- Status
Very true, lol
J
JohnnyBaseball1
Guest
See, my problem is that your version of justice involves throwing away all the rules to reach the result that you want. Great for you, shit for everyone else. These rules exist for the express purpose of making sure that judges don't do the thing you're suggesting. The only "activist" here would be you, for suggesting that courts should just forgo legal analysis when "common sense needs to prevail." That isn't what courts do, and Goodell knows that, whether you do or not. As the arbitrator, Goodell had certain legal responsibilities, and if the court finds that he did not meet those responsibilities (as it found here), then it was required to vacate his decision. Do you not understand that these rules are intended to protect people from exactly what you're suggesting?
The judge essentially held that the punishment that Goodell gave Brady was in violation of the CBA, because the general conduct detrimental clause was superseded by a specific clause that governs punishments for instances of players tampering with equipment. The specific punishment outlined in the CBA for equipment tampering is a fine, for the first offense, so the court held that Brady had no notice that an infraction of that nature could result in a 4 game punishment. And there is legal authority which says that an arbitrator may not base his punishment on personal whims, and that the court may vacate his finding if he does. Why shouldn't a court vacate a holding that it finds to be in violation of the CBA? Because it just "knows" he's guilty? You can disagree with this line of reasoning, but don't act like it isn't a plausible argument.
I understand that in a court of law, but this thing had no business even being in a court of law, the players collectively bargained and gave the commish the authority to mede out punishment for rules breakers and lawbreakers, nobody is going to jail, he's simply handing out suspensions for rules breakers and the CBA granted him that authority. The NFLPA essentially challenged the CBA and this Judge essentially voided it, otherwise he would have said it was collectively bargained that Goodell has the authority to suspend, he exerted that authority, and this court has no standing to interfere.
In fact that was the legal precedent that was set in Garvey vs the MLBPA. Now that that precedent has been broken, and assuming its upheld on appeal, Goodell needs to be replaced, POST HASTE, and the NFL needs to make Alan Dershowitz or some other Constitutional Scholar its commish. The days of applying common sense to these rulings are over, and the CBA is not binding either, thats why I want Sheldon to challenge his suspension in court, who cares that the CBA says his suspension is mandatory, the CBA also gave Goodell the authority to suspend Tom Brady for cheating, and he most definitely did cheat, even Judge Berman didn't dispute that fact, but he still saw fit to toss out Goodell's suspension regardless of the CBA and regardless of guilt, and why, because Goodell failed to dot every i and cross every t.
J
JohnnyBaseball1
Guest
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
A Man for All Seasons, Robert Bolt
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
A Man for All Seasons, Robert Bolt
Sounds to me you are very familiar in the legal procedures game, lol. Are you a cop or lawyer or probation officer? Don't bother answering if you are, I know people in that field don't really like advertising that line of work.
Not even close lol. I just watch a lot of TV.
That is oh so true. Lawyers will make arguments for people they could pretty much make themselves if they did their own research. It's all about getting that money,
Cool, lol
JB,
I understand that there needs to be rules in place to protect the accused, trust me, I get that and I am not disputing its importance, but procedural matters vary in degree and sometimes the violation is not so egregious that it merits a draconian solution like cutting a guilt man free. Perhaps a sanction or fine for the person who failed to follow procedure to the absolute letter of the law would be in order, again, if its not something major like an attempted frame, but to just say you failed to dot this i and cross this t, therefore we are cutting a guilty man loose, that too me is NOT Justice.
Brady cheated in the AFC Championship Game and he should have been punished for it.
The fact that he is playing on opening day, in my view, is a travesty of justice.
I understand that there needs to be rules in place to protect the accused, trust me, I get that and I am not disputing its importance, but procedural matters vary in degree and sometimes the violation is not so egregious that it merits a draconian solution like cutting a guilt man free. Perhaps a sanction or fine for the person who failed to follow procedure to the absolute letter of the law would be in order, again, if its not something major like an attempted frame, but to just say you failed to dot this i and cross this t, therefore we are cutting a guilty man loose, that too me is NOT Justice.
Brady cheated in the AFC Championship Game and he should have been punished for it.
The fact that he is playing on opening day, in my view, is a travesty of justice.
F
flgreen
Guest
The interesting thing is if you try to represent yourself in a court of law, the judge will often stonewall you. Why?
He's a lawyer.
F
flgreen
Guest
LOL. Real life lawyers have nothing on Saul.
The area I live in, driving 5 miles down US 1, I'll bet I pass 20 bill boards advertising lawyers.
Lol, yes sir you are correct
This thread, more than anything, proves how very different two groups of fans can be.
If Sheldon Richardson was a Patriot and I posted this thread in a Patriots forum, within FIVE MINUTES every Patriots fan in that forum would have a "FREE SHELDON RICHARDSON" signature and/or avatar, and FIVE MINUTES LATER there would be conspiracy theories flying fast and furious that make my initial conspiracy theories seem reasonable by comparison.
Now you can say that shows that we are not idiots like Patriots fans, not shameless homers like Patriots fans, and that would be somewhat comforting if not for the fact that all of their ranting and raving, in the end, was REWARDED, so once again the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Question is, would you rather be a rational loser or an irrational winner?
Thats the most distasteful aspect of this whole sordid affair and its been my primary motivation for this thread from the beginning, the mere fact that these people were rewarded for acting like the worlds most delusional crybabies.
That said, the most surprising aspect of this thread for me, the part that I never could have predicted, is that there are Jets fans who are so rational that they are actually defending Judge Berman's decision to void Tom Brady's suspension. I think I can safely say you wouldn't find one Patriots fan on the planet earth who would make a similar argument on the Jets behalf if the situation were reversed.
Like I said, two groups of fans, we follow the same game, but we couldn't be more different. If you want to say we are superior to them, go right ahead, you'll get no argument from me, but their QB is playing on opening day and our All-Pro DL will be watching us play on TV. I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere?
If Sheldon Richardson was a Patriot and I posted this thread in a Patriots forum, within FIVE MINUTES every Patriots fan in that forum would have a "FREE SHELDON RICHARDSON" signature and/or avatar, and FIVE MINUTES LATER there would be conspiracy theories flying fast and furious that make my initial conspiracy theories seem reasonable by comparison.
Now you can say that shows that we are not idiots like Patriots fans, not shameless homers like Patriots fans, and that would be somewhat comforting if not for the fact that all of their ranting and raving, in the end, was REWARDED, so once again the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Question is, would you rather be a rational loser or an irrational winner?
Thats the most distasteful aspect of this whole sordid affair and its been my primary motivation for this thread from the beginning, the mere fact that these people were rewarded for acting like the worlds most delusional crybabies.
That said, the most surprising aspect of this thread for me, the part that I never could have predicted, is that there are Jets fans who are so rational that they are actually defending Judge Berman's decision to void Tom Brady's suspension. I think I can safely say you wouldn't find one Patriots fan on the planet earth who would make a similar argument on the Jets behalf if the situation were reversed.
Like I said, two groups of fans, we follow the same game, but we couldn't be more different. If you want to say we are superior to them, go right ahead, you'll get no argument from me, but their QB is playing on opening day and our All-Pro DL will be watching us play on TV. I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere?
J
JohnnyBaseball1
Guest
But the thing is that, no matter how much you believe he is guilty, the arbitrator and the court have a responsibility to rely on provable facts, and not even the Wells Report claimed that Brady actually orchestrated the tampering, but only found that he was "generally aware." So called common sense may suggest that he was behind it all, but courts can't rely on common sense, and neither could the arbitrator. That is part of the reason for the decision, that Goodell did not have the factual basis necessary as an arbitrator to conclude that Brady actually directed or encouraged the tampering, and that for an arbitrator to suspend a player merely for being generally aware of misconduct by others, even in a case where the player would have benefitted from the tampering, had never resulted in a similar investigation or punishment by the league. The court held that Goodell made his punishment in violation of the CBA; collective bargaining does not waive the players rights to be heard in court, and that is a matter of due process.
Listen, I'm sure the NFL came up with their own legally sound argument that says that Goodell was within legal bounds, but unfortunately, they did not persuade the court. The NFL will appeal and plenty of decisions are overturned that way, so it may still be true that Goodell was right. What I object to is the notion that the court didnt have the authority to hear the case, or that it overstepped it's authority in deciding the case. There are actual reasons why the court decided the way they did. Disagree if you will, but at least address the arguments that they made. Courts resolve disputes between parties, it is simply what they do. But there has to be a loser. Unfortunately, this time it was the NFL.
Listen, I'm sure the NFL came up with their own legally sound argument that says that Goodell was within legal bounds, but unfortunately, they did not persuade the court. The NFL will appeal and plenty of decisions are overturned that way, so it may still be true that Goodell was right. What I object to is the notion that the court didnt have the authority to hear the case, or that it overstepped it's authority in deciding the case. There are actual reasons why the court decided the way they did. Disagree if you will, but at least address the arguments that they made. Courts resolve disputes between parties, it is simply what they do. But there has to be a loser. Unfortunately, this time it was the NFL.
F
flgreen
Guest
Do you think it's possible that a guy who was appointed, by a politician, to an influential job for life, might be a bit biased toward one side, (labor) who contribute 10's of millions of dollars to the guy's party who appointed him?
J
JohnnyBaseball1
Guest
Do you have any factual basis for that accusation, other than the fact that you don't like the result? Because accusing someone of serious malfeasance in their field without any evidence is extremely out of line, and if someone did it to you, you would not appreciate it.
If it doesn't turn your stomach that these people were rewarded for being such gigantic a-holes for months, and this is just a continuation of it, then you have a much stronger stomach than me.
I don't mean you personally, E, I'm speaking in general.
- Status