The Bank (7/19)

[Cane Tankerous]

What does Brazil have to do with this?

Brazilian's are certaintainly a good way to remove unwanted fur.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I have a feeling that, sometime in the future, you're going to have to explain what dicta is and why it doesn't mean ****.

It was covered in law school.

 

[Bender]

It was covered in law school.

Ok everyone, lets go and attend law school

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Ok everyone, lets go and attend law school

Sounds good. Hopefully that will reduce the number of people who mistakenly believe the Alston case is about NIL.

 

[ItsMeD]

It was covered in law school.

I have a funny feeling that a lot of people on this board didn't attend law school

 

[Felonious Monk]

Dicta is the plural form of dictum as in, "Dictum? **** near killed him!"

Or something to that effect. It's all Greek to me.

 

[UMFarArcher]

Ok everyone, lets go and attend law school

No need.

I learned over the years in being deposed as an expert witness - and as a jury member - there were - and are - a schittload of C- GPA attorneys that somehow passed the bar. How? No clue whatsoever!

If there's a term or a case reference - it's easy to look it up and possibly understand it's meaning better than some licensed attorneys. I think I saw a claim that the US has 47% of all attorneys in the world.

A simple Bell Curve would indicate very, very few bright attorneys.

Same with Surgeons. Airline pilots. Military Generals. Proctologists . . .

Sleep well.

 

[stormsurge]

No need.

I learned over the years in being deposed as an expert witness - and as a jury member - there were - and are - a schittload of C- GPA attorneys that somehow passed the bar. How? No clue whatsoever!

If there's a term or a case reference - it's easy to look it up and possibly understand it's meaning better than some licensed attorneys. I think I saw a claim that the US has 47% of all attorneys in the world.

A simple Bell Curve would indicate very, very few bright attorneys.

Same with surgeons. Airline pilots. Military Generals. Proctologists . . .

Sleep well.

when QP wants another educated lawyer to be born he simply breathes on The Constitution

 

[NorthEastCane]

I've read the opinion, which is why I made the comment that I made. And Kavanaugh's ONE-PERSON concurrence is dicta. IT MEANS NOTHING. The **** court was UNANIMOUS, 9-0, and he was the ONLY attention-seeker who chose to go beyond the bounds of the case to make a ridiculous first impression. It further proves what a lightweight Kavanaugh is, that he can't even read the room. He's young, he'll have plenty of chances in the future to make his "bitter beer face" when he doesn't like a particular litigant.

The case was about university-provided compensation (academic achievement awards). That is all.

The District Court said educational related benefits were in violation of antitrust. In the Supreme Court case, the NCAA asked the court to rule that all existing compensation restrains be immune to antitrust scrutiny. The plaintiffs chose not to did not renew their across-the-board challenge and, therefore, the Court did not consider the rules that remain in place for other compensation.

Why did the plaintiffs not renew? Maybe they plaintiffs wanted a “win,” which they got, rather than risking a loss on broader issues.

All of Kavanaugh's fake "savagery" was just political psycho-drama that meant nothing. He also likes to drink beer. Who cares? NOBODY JOINED HIM in his concurrence. It's just a temper tantrum.

So you can take 2/3 of your lengthy response and toss it in the garbage. Means nothing.

As for what the Alston opinion says (the real opinion that all 9 justices agreed upon), it is a bit trickier than saying there is some brightline "violation of antitrust laws". If you read the entirety of the case, rather than cutting-and-pasting and highlighting in bold only the parts that you want to agree with, the actual standard is to apply the "rule of reason" analysis to determine if there has been a violation of the Sherman Act. In other words, the NCAA actually CAN apply and enforce restrictions on compensation. HOWEVER, in order to pass muster under Sherman, those NCAA restraints must not be "undue", which is where the "rule of reason" analysis enters in.

We get it. You don't like Kavanaugh. I did read the entirety of the case (that's why it was posted so late last night). For the sake of brevity, I only posted the pieces that were germane to the point I was making it. That there was a court decision based on antitrust violations. While not binding, the concurring opinion may have a downstream impact by signaling other forms of compensation (e.g., NIL) could be open for review.

As a lawyer, you should leave personal feelings out of this. Who's to say if he is grandstanding or not. I doubt you know him personally. Time will tell if it ever reaches the Supreme Court level again, but it has opened the flood gates at a state level. I doubt that would happen if there was a likely chance that the NCAA could get it overturned at the Federal level.

Without massive cutting-and-pasting, and without unnecessary bolding of certain words, the NCAA's restrictions did, in fact, fail the "rule of reason" analysis, so the restrictions on academic achievement awards were found to be undue, and as such, a violation of Sherman antitrust principles. Not a literal violation of some particular and specific sub-section, but a spirit-of-the-law violation. The NCAA went too far, to a point where they were unable to prevail on the claim that the restrictions were warranted.

The fact remains, I am correct. The Alston case has nothing to do with NIL, though people mistakenly continue to claim that it was all about NIL. It was not.

You're correct about something entirely different than my intended assertion; however inarticulately I initially expressed it.

 

[NorthEastCane]

I have a feeling that, sometime in the future, you're going to have to explain what dicta is and why it doesn't mean ****.

A comment, suggestion, or observation made by a judge in an opinion that is not necessary to resolve the case.

In other words, it means diddly squat.

 

[Umbra]

This thread is a wild ride lmao.

 

[jdmorgan76]

The bank seems to have hit an embankment…

 

[TRick72]

I have a feeling that, sometime in the future, you're going to have to explain what dicta is and why it doesn't mean ****.

 

[superman]

The Bank 2.0 yet?

 

[JG13]

No need.

I learned over the years in being deposed as an expert witness - and as a jury member - there were - and are - a schittload of C- GPA attorneys that somehow passed the bar. How? No clue whatsoever!

If there's a term or a case reference - it's easy to look it up and possibly understand it's meaning better than some licensed attorneys. I think I saw a claim that the US has 47% of all attorneys in the world.

A simple Bell Curve would indicate very, very few bright attorneys.

Same with surgeons. Airline pilots. Military Generals. Proctologists . . .

Sleep well.

LOL @ sleep well

 

[TheOriginalCane]

The District Court said educational related benefits were in violation of antitrust. In the Supreme Court case, the NCAA asked the court to rule that all existing compensation restrains be immune to antitrust scrutiny. The plaintiffs chose not to did not renew their across-the-board challenge and, therefore, the Court did not consider the rules that remain in place for other compensation.

Why did the plaintiffs not renew? Maybe they plaintiffs wanted a “win,” which they got, rather than risking a loss on broader issues.



We get it. You don't like Kavanaugh. I did read the entirety of the case (that's why it was posted so late last night). For the sake of brevity, I only posted the pieces that were germane to the point I was making it. That there was a court decision based on antitrust violations. While not binding, the concurring opinion may have a downstream impact by signaling other forms of compensation (e.g., NIL) could be open for review.

As a lawyer, you should leave personal feelings out of this. Who's to say if he is grandstanding or not. I doubt you know him personally. Time will tell if it ever reaches the Supreme Court level again, but it has opened the flood gates at a state level. I doubt that would happen if there was a likely chance that the NCAA could get it overturned at the Federal level.


You're correct about something entirely different than my intended assertion; however inarticulately I initially expressed it.

Look, you can fvck straight off with you trying to make this about whether I "like" or "dislike" Kavanaugh. He is a lightweight who is in way over his head. It's painfully apparent when you read his concurrence, he is grandstanding when he talks about compensation and equity when he has absolutely zero track record of caring about or opining on any other issues that impact workers. It's selective. I realize that he's saying words you want him to say in relation to the NCAA, but it is the work of a rank hypocrite. He will conveniently forget his passion on the constraint of wages for EVERY OTHER CASE that comes before him for the rest of his career. Unless he gets another NCAA case, then he will rediscover his zeal for the rights of the working man.

You don't have to "know a person personally" to evaluate when someone is grandstanding. It's obvious from the context. Again, if you are too "rah, rah, you tell 'em, Brett" over his anti-NCAA screed to be able to analyze this, it's on you. He's got EIGHT OTHER JUSTICES who have agreed with him on the OUTCOME of the case, and he couldn't even convince ONE of them to jump on his "let's expand this to NIL" dinghy. Sad. Pathetic.

So there was no purpose for the concurrence. It doesn't change the current case. He's free to express those sentiments in the future when four other justices agree with him. It's just one guy ****ing into the wind.

There's a reason you need a case and controversy. Judges aren't supposed to try to issue a ruling on Issue Z when only Issue A is before them. It's one of those elements of "judicial activism" that people claim to hate (unless it goes their way). I realize the NCAA is an unpopular dead horse that people would like to beat, but it was pretty childish of Kavanaugh to take his free punch when not even one other Justice was willing to join him.

I do think it's amusing that you believe your only mistake was being "inarticulate" about the Alston case. Or what is more accurately described as "wrong".

 

[JHallCanes]

Ok everyone, lets go and attend law school

Why?

I can read Facebook it’s the same thing

 

[ItsMeD]

A comment, suggestion, or observation made by a judge in an opinion that is not necessary to resolve the case.

In other words, it means diddly squat.

It was probably worded poorly on my part. I was just joking that there will still be posters who will think what Kavanaugh wrote is law and will continue to need it explained/repeated

 

[NorthEastCane]

Look, you can fvck straight off with you trying to make this about whether I "like" or "dislike" Kavanaugh. He is a lightweight who is in way over his head. It's painfully apparent when you read his concurrence, he is grandstanding when he talks about compensation and equity when he has absolutely zero track record of caring about or opining on any other issues that impact workers. It's selective. I realize that he's saying words you want him to say in relation to the NCAA, but it is the work of a rank hypocrite. He will conveniently forget his passion on the constraint of wages for EVERY OTHER CASE that comes before him for the rest of his career. Unless he gets another NCAA case, then he will rediscover his zeal for the rights of the working man.

You don't have to "know a person personally" to evaluate when someone is grandstanding. It's obvious from the context. Again, if you are too "rah, rah, you tell 'em, Brett" over his anti-NCAA screed to be able to analyze this, it's on you. He's got EIGHT OTHER JUSTICES who have agreed with him on the OUTCOME of the case, and he couldn't even convince ONE of them to jump on his "let's expand this to NIL" dinghy. Sad. Pathetic.

So there was no purpose for the concurrence. It doesn't change the current case. He's free to express those sentiments in the future when four other justices agree with him. It's just one guy ****ing into the wind.

There's a reason you need a case and controversy. Judges aren't supposed to try to issue a ruling on Issue Z when only Issue A is before them. It's one of those elements of "judicial activism" that people claim to hate (unless it goes their way). I realize the NCAA is an unpopular dead horse that people would like to beat, but it was pretty childish of Kavanaugh to take his free punch when not even one other Justice was willing to join him.

I do think it's amusing that you believe your only mistake was being "inarticulate" about the Alston case. Or what is more accurately described as "wrong".

I hope this isn’t indicative of your courtroom demeanor. Sometimes I agree with you and sometimes I have a different opinion. This is a message board for Christ sakes. You don’t have to be so combative all the time.

I’m done with this. Have a nice day.

 

[ItsMeD]

Why?

I can read Facebook it’s the same thing

Lol. Unfortunately, this is true. It's wild when people think they know more about a profession than the professionals.

Now excuse me while I go yell at coaches for not doing things the right way.