Thread: lockout could be blessing for undrafted free

Originally Posted by Dagan81

That's true. You're getting into my area of expertise right here since I spent time studying political science at UT. (I'm officially a History major, but at one time, I was a double major in that and Political Science.) This argument, that when judges start ignoring the law in favor of their political persuasions, goes back to President John Adams' signing his "midnight appointments" on the eve of his leaving the Oval Office after losing the revolutionary Election of 1800 to perhaps the most brilliant political mind in the history of the U.S. Presidency - Thomas Jefferson. Adams' appointments included the appointment of Chief Justice John Marshall, who went on to become a major political foe of Jefferson's in the Judiciary Branch of Washington because he was a Federalist while Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican. You have no doubt heard of the famous court case involving the right to judicial review that came from Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison. It essentially made it legal for the courts to determine that laws passed by Congress and the states to be unconstitutional.

Another famous court case, this one even more political and full of bullshit in nature, is McCulloch v. Maryland. It stated that although the Constitution does not specifically give Congress the power to establish a bank, it does delegate the ability to tax and spend, and a bank is a proper and suitable instrument to assist the operations of the government in the collection and disbursement of the revenue. Because federal laws have supremacy over state laws, Maryland had no power to interfere with the bank's operation by taxing it. Maryland Court of Appeals reversed.

So, for over 200 years, we have seen the Federal courts determine the outcome of cases based off of political affiliation. John Marshall was the first "political" Chief Justice in U.S. history. What we are seeing today is nothing different that what we saw back two centuries ago. You can thank John Adams for that.

If I ever need any legal advice I know who to talk to...no names need to be mentioned...errr...Dagan81...

Originally Posted by Dagan81

That's true. You're getting into my area of expertise right here since I spent time studying political science at UT. (I'm officially a History major, but at one time, I was a double major in that and Political Science.) This argument, that when judges start ignoring the law in favor of their political persuasions, goes back to President John Adams' signing his "midnight appointments" on the eve of his leaving the Oval Office after losing the revolutionary Election of 1800 to perhaps the most brilliant political mind in the history of the U.S. Presidency - Thomas Jefferson. Adams' appointments included the appointment of Chief Justice John Marshall, who went on to become a major political foe of Jefferson's in the Judiciary Branch of Washington because he was a Federalist while Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican. You have no doubt heard of the famous court case involving the right to judicial review that came from Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison. It essentially made it legal for the courts to determine that laws passed by Congress and the states to be unconstitutional.

Another famous court case, this one even more political and full of bullshit in nature, is McCulloch v. Maryland. It stated that although the Constitution does not specifically give Congress the power to establish a bank, it does delegate the ability to tax and spend, and a bank is a proper and suitable instrument to assist the operations of the government in the collection and disbursement of the revenue. Because federal laws have supremacy over state laws, Maryland had no power to interfere with the bank's operation by taxing it. Maryland Court of Appeals reversed.

So, for over 200 years, we have seen the Federal courts determine the outcome of cases based off of political affiliation. John Marshall was the first "political" Chief Justice in U.S. history. What we are seeing today is nothing different that what we saw back two centuries ago. You can thank John Adams for that.

Thank you for your agreement and the supporting documentation of the same Dags. As I said, that was my point all along. Were this case merely being tried on it's legal merits alone then the injunction would have been sustained rather than overruled. The NFL can''t meet all four conditions set by law that would achieve that. Therefore in a totally unbiased court the injunction stands.

Originally Posted by soulman

Thank you for your agreement and the supporting documentation of the same Dags. As I said, that was my point all along. Were this case merely being tried on it's legal merits alone then the injunction would have been sustained rather than overruled. The NFL can''t meet all four conditions set by law that would achieve that. Therefore in a totally unbiased court the injunction stands.

Yeah, in a perfect world, that would be the case. Unfortunately, the 8th Circuit Court is of a different political persuasion than the first court (Name of the first judge is drawing blanks in my mind and I'm too lazy to look for it). It's too bad that we can't have judges that read Constitutional law "as-is" and instead hide behind political affiliations. I guess that as a Libertarian, that's what I yearn for.