Phire Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 Just now, gopherwrestler said: did you guys hear about Zeke? what happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 Just now, Phire said: One Texas judge did. The prior NY judge only did so to not step on Judge Failla's shoes. Wasn't a decision on the merits. Eh, I disagree. You don't grant the TRO if you aren't leaning that direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phire Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 1 minute ago, lancerman said: Which is essentially what happened to Brady. 2 judges sided with him, two judges sided the league. Unfortunately the way it was split was that you had 1 judge acting independently in the initial hearing and then the other judge being overuled on a best out of 3 appeal. Luck of the draw. Completely different here, not even close. Not really sure what you're referring to but the appeals court got it right, has nothing to do with luck of the draw. And the second injunction was just a placeholder until the actual judge got back from vacation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phire Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, jrry32 said: Eh, I disagree. You don't grant the TRO if you aren't leaning that direction. Have you followed today's proceedings? Judge Failla explained everything. By granting the injunction the first judge merely preserved the status quo. It wasn't a resolution on the merits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
titans0021 Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 10 minutes ago, jrry32 said: That sound? The collective resigned sighs of every Zeke fantasy owner: This is disappointing. And a huge win for the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, Phire said: Have you followed today's proceedings? Judge Failla explained everything. By granting the injunction the first judge merely preserved the status quo. In order to grant the TRO, he had to find irreparable harm. That puts her in a somewhat awkward position. Now, odds are that they discussed this. It might have just been the best outcome to preserve status quo, and she was fine punting on that issue. Regardless of whether it's two or one, my point remains the same. It's borderline case that is going to come down to the judge hearing it. If you put it before 10 different D. Ct. judges, odds are that you're going to get a healthy split in the outcomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamRod Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 Should've just gotten it over with at the beginning of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phire Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 1 minute ago, jrry32 said: In order to grant the TRO, he had to find irreparable harm. That puts her in a somewhat awkward position. Now, odds are that they discussed this. It might have just been the best outcome to preserve status quo, and she was fine punting on that issue. Regardless of whether it's two or one, my point remains the same. It's borderline case that is going to come down to the judge hearing it. If you put it before 10 different D. Ct. judges, odds are that you're going to get a healthy split in the outcomes. I'm telling you, Judge Failla said the first NY TRO wasn't a resolution on the merits haha, she literally said, words from her mouth, that the first TRO was to preserve the status quo which would avoid stepping on, or influencing, Judge Failla's ultimate resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 4 minutes ago, Phire said: I'm telling you, Judge Failla said the first NY TRO wasn't a resolution on the merits haha, she literally said, words from her mouth, that the first TRO was to preserve the status quo which would avoid stepping on, or influencing, Judge Failla's ultimate resolution. It's a TRO. They never are final judgments on the merits. I don't doubt what you're saying. As I said in the second part of my post, it's not important either ways. The point remains whether it's one judge or two. I'll admit that I stretched it by saying two judges instead of one. We can't be 100% sure how Crotty would have ruled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phire Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 I'm going to assume the judge laughed at "irreparable harm." TROs are by nature an extraordinary equitable measure that flexes the government's muscles, telling a citizen(s) what they can or can't do. TROs are given out in the real world for actual harm, not missing out on imaginary statistics or wins. So Zeke gets a 6 game vacation where he can save his body from actual physical harm? But Zeke misses out on those yards! His team! OH THE HUMANITY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phire Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 4 minutes ago, jrry32 said: It's a TRO. They never are final judgments on the merits. I don't doubt what you're saying. As I said in the second part of my post, it's not important either ways. The point remains whether it's one judge or two. I didn't say final judgment on the merits. I said resolution on the merits. When you resolve a motion for a TRO you are applying the facts to the legal standard for a resolution on the merits of the request for a temporary injunction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 Not surprised, I honestly don't even think this is a close legal question. Does anyone have a pdf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 16 minutes ago, RamRod said: Should've just gotten it over with at the beginning of the season. The problem is he was being labled a women beater and by accepting the punishment he was accepting that the peanut gallery could say "well if you weren't why didn't you fight it". Brady was a step away from going to the Supreme Court and you still have people who say "if you aren't a cheater, why did you give up". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamRod Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 1 minute ago, lancerman said: The problem is he was being labled a women beater and by accepting the punishment he was accepting that the peanut gallery could say "well if you weren't why didn't you fight it". Brady was a step away from going to the Supreme Court and you still have people who say "if you aren't a cheater, why did you give up". That's true. Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gopherwrestler Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 LOUD NOISES! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.