Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
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.
striker42
Well-known member
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.
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.
Can’t wait till we hear the same equal pay argument that the WNBA players complain about.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
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.
striker42
Well-known member
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.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
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.
striker42
Well-known member
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.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Is the Georgia vs Tennessee fight over the old state line and river issue still ongoing?
striker42
Well-known member
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.
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.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Still refusing to set a goal post on when Biden is going to add justices?
sturg33
I
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)
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)
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
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.
striker42
Well-known member
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.