If I recall correctly, you thought we might win with Berman on that issue, and yeah, the panel made a mess of it. Clement was within his rights to address it on appeal, but the panel really needed to work through it in a thoughtful way. It didn't, and now this is low hanging fruit.The one thing I'm most curious about is whether Olsen's decision to emphasize arbitrator impartiality is because he thinks that's the best argument (and that Kessler & Co had erred by relying so heavily on notice) or because he thinks that's the way to go because he needs a hail mary (and also because ripping Goodell's credibility is good for his client even if they don't get the rehearing).
One thing that always sat poorly with my about the appellate decision is that majority ruled (in a fairly cursory manner) on partiality despite the fact that Berman had not ruled on it. I suspect Olsen seems it the same way--partiality is a real issue, it was never analyzed by the district court, but two panel members decided to opine on partiality without addressing the various issues raised by Feinberg?
This article summarizes the four amicus briefs and links them:
I think it's positive, though not particularly surprising given the lack of opposition, that the seemingly late filed professors brief was not bounced. That said, that's the one brief that I have not read so maybe it adds little to the mix. Does anyone have a link to that one that they can post?
Oh, you meant the 5th brief from those other professors...Cabin, I was referring to the second brief filed by professors. That brief is not summarized or linked above.
Wishcasting? Don't pull your punches. Andrew Kim's tweet is idiocy.Probably doesn't mean a whole lot but..
For those on mobile - CA2 allowed all 5 amicus briefs. One twitter follower of Wallach's noted this:
But that seems like wishcasting to me. Again for those on mobile it says that "CA2 could have held the motions for leave, deny the pet., and then deny motions as moot."
My question for the folks here is has your opinion regarding the likelihood of cert being granted changed? If so, has it changed materially?Will it be enough to interest the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving the deflation of footballs? That is a different question. Two factors may result in the Supreme Court accepting the Brady case for consideration: First, there is the formidable presence of Olson and his supporting case. Having the country's largest and most important labor organization and its most respected arbiter in their corner can only help Olson and Brady's argument that the case is of national significance.
I don't know...I think the USSC is deliberately granting fewer certs because they know that they'll be down at eight Justices for most of the term. That could easily work against Brady.am keeping an eye on the cert grants for next Term, which remain slow. As of May 31, the Court has filled its calendar for only Oct and a good portion of Nov next Term. See --
I think that could help us at the margins.
Olson's brief and the supporting briefs from Feinberg and the labor law professors are a tour de force engineered by a brilliant appellate advocate.
Ted Olson wasn't brought is to file a long shot petition for en banc hearing.The Union has to try and take this to the next level. There is just too much to lose from the Union's viewpoint if Goodell as an arbitrator does not have to be fair and unbiased in his judgements.
So you're not going to burn me for being off by 3 days, right?Whether or not he petitions for cert, Brady is going to serve the suspension the first four games of the season.
Here are the possibilities:
1) He's denied a stay from the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court. He serves the suspension whether he petitions for cert or not.
2) He gets a stay. Petition is due in 90 days. Assuming no extensions are granted and the petition is filed on the due date, his petition will be considered November 30. Earliest he would be denied is November 25. He will have played the first three games, and will now stand to miss games 11-15.
3) He gets a stay. Petition is due in 90 days. The NFL requests and receives an extension for the opposition. He may miss goddamned playoff games or the Super Bowl.
4) Unicorns and rainbows.
They're either going to drop it, or petition for cert with no stay. They can still try to fight for the principle.
BTW, pretty funny that the Peterson case (argued last October in the fastest circuit in the country) hasn't been decided.
There are 31 other owners who get miserable old-man semi-boners at night thinking about Brady being suspended for a playoff game. OF COURSE they would suspend him for a postseason game. Think of who you're dealing with: rich emotional infants.
Absolutely -- and it would not be unfair from a certain perspective.
After watching how far the league has gone to make a point about the power of the Commissioner, you think they would hesitate to impose a suspension because of the playoffs?