StrangeSox

When it goes to the arbitrator, the arbitrator is supposed to be fair and unbiased, not one side in a negotiation. The federal judge isn't acting as the arbitrator here but a step beyond.

Off to jail for contempt of court http://www.ajc.com/news/news/national/kent...arriage-/nnXdL/

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 12:05 PM) And I get that. It's all silly. At the same time, if you allow people to skirt small rules, they'll keep doing it and keep testing the limits to gain an edge. That Patriots being a perfect example. I don't think we want that either. But that same argument applies to Goodell! You can't just keep letting him do whatever the hell he wants regardless of contractual due process. He's been slapped down by external review time and time again.

All of this over some footballs that may or may not have been slightly underinflated.

"Some kind of punishment" is maybe a fine, maybe, if the NFL could even reliably show that the balls were underinflated (they initially seemed unaware that ambient temperature affects pressure, and they used two different gauges and don't know which was used for which measurements). Missing a quarter of a season? Ridiculous, and exactly why he's been slapped down. Again.

I think this deadspin article basically captures my sentiments

Allegedly violated a rule and allegedly tried to hide it. The NFL couldn't anticipate a player not cooperating with an investigation?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 10:26 AM) But he had notice that tampering with equipment was a violation of the rules. And i'm not sure that obstructing an investigation really needs to be spelled out in a CBA to put a player on notice that what he was doing was in violation of the rules. Why should that have to be clarified more than "conduct detrimental to the league?" And again, saying he wasn't on notice that these violations carried a potential 4 game suspension like steriod use is dumb. The NFL shouldn't have to come up with an entire penalty system for violations that have never occurred before - it's uncharted territory for a reason. The Commish, if he's got the authority to penalize a player, also has the right to determine a fair and reasonable punishment. Who cares if he wasn't aware that he could be penalized like steroid violations. The penalties for tampering with equipment were clearly spelled out, and they didn't include lengthy suspensions. I think that's the problem. "The Commish" doesn't have the right to violate the contracts they've signed and arbitrarily hand out punishments without due process. The courts have ruled several times now that the "conduct detrimental" clause doesn't give the NFL the power to unilaterally override all of the other parts spelled out in the CBA regarding infractions and discipline.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 10:15 AM) Not providing Brady access to files and not allowing him to question Pash seem to be the two major parts here. That first argument about notice is such nonsense. Possibly, but the ruling also stated that the reliance on the "conduct detrimental" clause was "legally misplaced," and that's the clause that gives Goodell broad discretion. Maybe that's the part that's relevant to the notification.

I don't know if that's what they agreed to or not, I'm speculating why the judge would make "no notification of possible penalties" part of the ruling.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 10:02 AM) I mean the devil is in the details of the opinion, but if that's the case, that would require the CBA to include every conceivable violation a player can make and then the potential penalty to go along with it. How is that realistic? No, it could just mean that they need to lay out the possible consequences at the start of an investigation. Wasn't everyone pretty shocked when the 4-game suspension was initially announced? As it is, Goodell just gets to make it up as he goes.

I'm not sure about that as a broad principle, but that is essentially what the Obergefell ruling said.

I don't think Huckabee's position is actually coherent so it's hard to say.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 09:34 AM) Brady destroyed the cell phone he is guilty of something..............he is no f***ing saint. The discipline process was in the collective bargaining contract, how a judge can change that is beyond me. The Patriots are the sacred cow no matter what they do. I'm guessing that the judge ruled that the NFL didn't actually follow the discipline process, which given how vindictive and arbitrary Goodell has been, isn't exactly a stretch. edit: jenks, maybe the disciplinary process spelled out in the CBA requires notice of the potential penalties? edit2: deadspin has the ruling up

QUOTE (shipps @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 09:30 AM) Exactly, Goodell totally deserves this embarrassment.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 09:33 AM) Right, ultimately that's why the distinction doesn't matter. If you follow Huckabee's 'logic' through to its conclusion, he's saying that unless a state has an explicit same-sex marriage law on the books, nobody in that state has the authority to issue a marriage license to same sex couples in the first place. It's not about whether she has committed an illegal act but how Huckabee seems to have a deep misunderstanding of the basic function and structure of our government. edit: I think what NSS said is pretty accurate QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 09:28 AM) This is just Huckabee twisting and contorting his own mindset to find some way, any way, to ignore what is legally crystal clear.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 09:31 AM) I'm sure that's in the list of duties under whatever law created her position. Then, with Obergefell, that duty would require her to issue a marriage license to couples regardless their gender, rendering her/Huckabee's point moot/dumb.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 09:29 AM) I don't disagree, but we're talking about her actions. Is she technically in violation of a law/the law/her duties by not issuing those licenses? Is there a law mandating what she, as a clerk, does/doesn't do. I'm sure there's some law defining her role and responsibilities, and perhaps it says something like "uphold the laws of this state and/or the constitution" or whatever, but maybe not. Having a right and having that right infringed is different from saying some individual committed an illegal act. I think her oath of office does require her to uphold the Kentucky and US Constitutions. Huckabee's letter wasn't about whether or not she committed an illegal act (I agree that she didn't except contempt of court) but some silly bluster about her not even having the authority to issue homosexual couples a marriage license in the first place.

She's in violation of gay couples' constitutional rights. Wouldn't Brown be analogous here? I don't think Mississippi went and passed a bunch of laws mandating desegregation, and yet segregation remained a violation of the Constitution. Obergefell was pretty explicit that the fundamental right of couples of any gender to marry may not be deprived (end of page 4 and beginning of page 5). The parts of state marriage laws that exclude same-sex couples were declared invalid. You don't need a law explicitly allowing the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples when the existing marriage laws are now applicable to them.

In what way is that a decent point?

Mike Huckabee: really dumb or really cynical?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 11, 2015 -> 01:45 PM) Rick Perry's fundraising has dried up, and he's no longer able to keep paying staffers. He may be packing it in soon as Trump continues to suck up all of the energy and attention. His NH campaign operation has dried up.

Yeah, I don't know if they'll win any more games, but I don't expect the embarrassing blowouts in multiple games like last year.

Makes you wonder how much of the religious-based homophobia is really more homophobia-with-religion-as-a-convenient-crutch.