Page 87 of 154 FirstFirst ... 3777858687888997137 ... LastLast
Results 1,721 to 1,740 of 3067

Thread: Legal/scotus thread

  1. #1721
    It's OVER 5,000! Tapate50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    24,502
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    9,102
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,715
    Thanked in
    3,901 Posts
    NCAA has overstepped their bounds for a long time. About time they catch some hell legally. They go unchecked
    Ivermectin Man

  2. #1722
    10 yr, $185 million Extension
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    4,626
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    199
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,328
    Thanked in
    853 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by striker42 View Post
    Big case being argued right now. NCAA v. Alston. This is a case about whether student athlete compensation rules violate antitrust law. It's not going well for the NCAA. They're catching it from both sides. At this point a 9-0 decision wouldn't surprise me.
    Good. I’m not sure exactly what the answer is for compensation, but I’m damn sure the current system isn’t it. I would even support a sub-minimum wage similar to Minor League Baseball, but college athletics is essentially a FT job, and not paying them is downright criminal. I also cannot understand *any* restrictions on athletes profiting off of their likeness. If some company wants to give a college kid money to promote something, just let them.

  3. #1723
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52,937
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,019
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,137
    Thanked in
    5,792 Posts
    I'm fine with paying college athletes and am supportive.

    But the economics don't really work outside of football and basketball.

    All the other sports are money losers

  4. #1724
    It's OVER 5,000! striker42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,668
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    388
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,207
    Thanked in
    2,053 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mqt View Post
    Good. I’m not sure exactly what the answer is for compensation, but I’m damn sure the current system isn’t it. I would even support a sub-minimum wage similar to Minor League Baseball, but college athletics is essentially a FT job, and not paying them is downright criminal. I also cannot understand *any* restrictions on athletes profiting off of their likeness. If some company wants to give a college kid money to promote something, just let them.
    The NCAA acts like it's still 1949 with college athletics much more akin to a club than to a money making endeavor. College football in particular has changed so much it's not even remotely similar. Football coaches are usually the highest paid public employee in a state. TV contracts are measured in the billions. Jersey sales bring in millions for schools. And the time commitment to play is so much greater.

    Not paying players a fair wage is no longer defensible.

  5. #1725
    10 yr, $185 million Extension
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    4,626
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    199
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,328
    Thanked in
    853 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sturg33 View Post
    I'm fine with paying college athletes and am supportive.

    But the economics don't really work outside of football and basketball.

    All the other sports are money losers
    I think you could still set a lower rate and apply it equally to all sports, and remove any restrictions from NIL profits. Those making the University money in football and basketball can still use their likeness to make money off of endorsements and autographs and such, and all athletes can get paid for their time.

  6. #1726
    Shift Leader thethe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    69,705
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5,513
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,180
    Thanked in
    3,899 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sturg33 View Post
    I'm fine with paying college athletes and am supportive.

    But the economics don't really work outside of football and basketball.

    All the other sports are money losers
    Can’t wait till we hear the same equal pay argument that the WNBA players complain about.
    Natural Immunity Croc

  7. #1727
    It's OVER 5,000! Jaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    7,309
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    8,202
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,344
    Thanked in
    1,625 Posts
    I think the NCAA stuff is going to be a case of killing the golden goose. Colleges aren't likely to just happily lose a major revenue stream, so they'll cut expenses to compensate. Where is the easiest place to justify cutting expenses? Non revenue sports. We'll have fewer schools with any athletics, and many schools with no athletics besides football, occasionally basketball, and whatever they have to do to offset that for Title IX.
    Go get him!

    Founding member of the Whiny Little Bitches and Pricks Club

  8. #1728
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,648
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,390
    Thanked in
    7,539 Posts
    No update on Georgia thumping Florida 9-0?

    Come on striker, this is up your wheelhouse.
    "I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."

    "I am your retribution."

  9. #1729
    It's OVER 5,000! striker42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,668
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    388
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,207
    Thanked in
    2,053 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    No update on Georgia thumping Florida 9-0?

    Come on striker, this is up your wheelhouse.
    I was busy yesterday and didn't get to check the court news. Just saw the case this morning. It's more of a thumping than just 9-0. Florida had to prove two things by clear and convincing evidence (higher than preponderance of the evidence you see in civil, lower than beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal), first that Georgia's overconsumption of water caused or threatened a harm of serious magnitude and second that this harm substantially outweighs the harm to Georgia that limiting Georgia's water would cause.

    The court didn't even address the second prong of the test. The court found that Florida failed spectacularly in proving Georgia's water use caused a harm of serious magnitude. The court said there was a "complete lack of evidence" of such a harm.

    Florida lost this case about as badly as it's possible to lose one. There's also no further appeal on these facts now. They can only launch new litigation if there's a change or new set of facts. Considering how much Florida hung its hat on the oyster problem, I doubt there's anything else out there that would present a better case for Florida.

  10. #1730
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,648
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,390
    Thanked in
    7,539 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by striker42 View Post
    I was busy yesterday and didn't get to check the court news. Just saw the case this morning. It's more of a thumping than just 9-0. Florida had to prove two things by clear and convincing evidence (higher than preponderance of the evidence you see in civil, lower than beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal), first that Georgia's overconsumption of water caused or threatened a harm of serious magnitude and second that this harm substantially outweighs the harm to Georgia that limiting Georgia's water would cause.

    The court didn't even address the second prong of the test. The court found that Florida failed spectacularly in proving Georgia's water use caused a harm of serious magnitude. The court said there was a "complete lack of evidence" of such a harm.

    Florida lost this case about as badly as it's possible to lose one. There's also no further appeal on these facts now. They can only launch new litigation if there's a change or new set of facts. Considering how much Florida hung its hat on the oyster problem, I doubt there's anything else out there that would present a better case for Florida.
    It seems that a lot of these types of cases get filed for optics or politics. You do it even if you don't have a legal leg to stand on.
    "I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."

    "I am your retribution."

  11. #1731
    It's OVER 5,000! striker42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,668
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    388
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,207
    Thanked in
    2,053 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    It seems that a lot of these types of cases get filed for optics or politics. You do it even if you don't have a legal leg to stand on.
    Yeah. You have a lot of people who have seen their livelihood disappear and want to blame someone for it. It's easier to deflect blame onto Georgia than own up to mismanagement of the fishery.

    There's also hope that litigation would give Florida a better position in agreeing to an interstate agreement. That it would provide leverage. However, that only works as long as litigation is ongoing. Georgia has little motivation to make any concessions to Florida now.

  12. #1732
    It's OVER 5,000! Jaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    7,309
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    8,202
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,344
    Thanked in
    1,625 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by striker42 View Post
    I was busy yesterday and didn't get to check the court news. Just saw the case this morning. It's more of a thumping than just 9-0. Florida had to prove two things by clear and convincing evidence (higher than preponderance of the evidence you see in civil, lower than beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal), first that Georgia's overconsumption of water caused or threatened a harm of serious magnitude and second that this harm substantially outweighs the harm to Georgia that limiting Georgia's water would cause.

    The court didn't even address the second prong of the test. The court found that Florida failed spectacularly in proving Georgia's water use caused a harm of serious magnitude. The court said there was a "complete lack of evidence" of such a harm.

    Florida lost this case about as badly as it's possible to lose one. There's also no further appeal on these facts now. They can only launch new litigation if there's a change or new set of facts. Considering how much Florida hung its hat on the oyster problem, I doubt there's anything else out there that would present a better case for Florida.
    Is the Georgia vs Tennessee fight over the old state line and river issue still ongoing?
    Go get him!

    Founding member of the Whiny Little Bitches and Pricks Club

  13. #1733
    It's OVER 5,000! striker42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,668
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    388
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,207
    Thanked in
    2,053 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaw View Post
    Is the Georgia vs Tennessee fight over the old state line and river issue still ongoing?
    It's still simmering but my guess is that yesterday's ruling takes some of the heat off it. There hasn't been a lot of official action on the issue. I think it has always been a fallback if the SCOTUS were to severely curtail access to Lake Lanier.

  14. #1734
    It's OVER 5,000! striker42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,668
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    388
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,207
    Thanked in
    2,053 Posts
    Couple bits of court news recently. The court again rejected the 9th Circuits approval of California restrictions on religious gatherings. There was a rule in California limiting in home gatherings to no more than 3 households.

    The majority said this is not allowed as many secular gatherings (restaurants, private boxes at sporting events, etc) allow more than three households.

    The dissent argued that since secular in home gatherings were also limited, the regulation should stand. Honestly, both sides had points.

    Then there's court packing. This seems like Biden just trying to appeal to his base to me. They don't even have 50 senators who would agree to court packing.

    Also, Justice Breyer spoke out against court packing in a lecture this week and has gotten some calls from liberals to retire. Make no mistake, they don't care about his stance on court packing. They want him to retire in favor of a young liberal justice so he doesn't die during a Republican presidency.

  15. #1735
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52,937
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,019
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,137
    Thanked in
    5,792 Posts
    Trump getting 3 sane constitutional judges through was a much bigger deal than we think... especially in the age of covid tyrannical rule

    It is obvious why the left wants to change this


  16. #1736
    It's OVER 5,000! cajunrevenge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    uranus
    Posts
    25,410
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4,510
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,832
    Thanked in
    2,741 Posts
    Still refusing to set a goal post on when Biden is going to add justices?
    "Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States.

    It’s over."


    Little Thethe Nov 19, 2020.

  17. #1737
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52,937
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,019
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,137
    Thanked in
    5,792 Posts
    I would bet that he won't because he can't, thanks to a hick from West VA and a lesbian from Arizona

    Not because he wouldn't if he could. The rest of his party is demanding it

    If that makes you feel comfortable, then you are dumber than I thought (and I think you are already incredibly dumb)

  18. #1738
    It's OVER 5,000! cajunrevenge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    uranus
    Posts
    25,410
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4,510
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,832
    Thanked in
    2,741 Posts
    So all this crying is over something you know isnt going to happen but you in your infinite wisdom know what Biden wants to do because you are the Biden whisperer? Cone on man.
    "Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States.

    It’s over."


    Little Thethe Nov 19, 2020.

  19. #1739
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52,937
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,019
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,137
    Thanked in
    5,792 Posts
    Unlike you, I can see beyond step one

  20. #1740
    It's OVER 5,000! striker42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,668
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    388
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,207
    Thanked in
    2,053 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by cajunrevenge View Post
    So all this crying is over something you know isnt going to happen but you in your infinite wisdom know what Biden wants to do because you are the Biden whisperer? Cone on man.
    I think Biden would probably sign a law changing the number of justices if it hit his desk. The majority of his party wants it and Biden is the definition of a party man.

    If Biden was so against court packing he'd veto a bill on it, he'd have come out against it in the general election when it was a weapon that could be used against him.

    That being said, I don't think it's a high priority for him. He knows there aren't 50 votes in the Senate for it, much less 60. I think this commission he's created is more to appease others in his party.

Similar Threads

  1. Cops gun down legal carrying citizen
    By zitothebrave in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 108
    Last Post: 07-15-2016, 02:58 PM
  2. SCOTUS
    By 57Brave in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 169
    Last Post: 03-31-2016, 08:21 AM
  3. 'Temporary Legal Status'
    By Hawk in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 11-22-2014, 10:02 AM
  4. Four big technology legal cases in 2014
    By Krgrecw in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-05-2014, 12:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •